The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
July 10, 2006
Dr. Barbara J. Ripa, Superintendent
Hampshire Regional School District
19 Stage Road
Westhampton, MA 01027
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
Dear Superintendent Ripa:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report (MidCycle Report) for the Hampshire Regional School District – Westhampton, Southampton,
Williamsburg, and Chesterfield-Goshen School Districts. 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 Hampshire
Regional School District Coordinated Program Review Report issued on March 26, 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’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 self-assessment, 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 Midcycle 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/ .
While the Department of Education found your district to have resolved certain noncompliance
issues, others remain partially corrected. Where the district has failed to fully 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 July 21, 2006.
Your staff's cooperation throughout these follow-up monitoring activities was very much
appreciated. Should you like clarification of any part of our report, please do not hesitate to
contact the Mid-cycle Review Chairperson at 413-858-4591.
Sincerely,
Martha H. von Mering, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Brad Brousseau, Hampshire Regional School Committee Chairperson
Laurie Farkas, Special Education Administrator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Progress Report Form
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
HAMPSHIRE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Southampton, Westhampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): May 6 – 10, 2002
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: August 5, 2003
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: July 2004 and January 2005
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: May 25-26, 30-31, June 6-7, 15-16, 2006
Date of this Report: July 10, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 3
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
Basis of Determination
Action
that Implementation of
Determined
Corrective Action was
Not to have
Incomplete or
been
Ineffective Or
Implemented
Basis of Finding of New
or Not to
Noncompliance
have been
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Special Education Criteria Originally Cited in CPR Report and Monitored in Mid-cycle
Statutory requirements for the
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 1 of 15
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Special
requirements for
determination of
specific learning
disabilities
SE 8
Evaluation team
composition
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

The district does not
consistently ensure that a
district representative
with the authority to
commit resources is a
member of the Team.
The district will provide a
memo to all applicable staff
reminding them of the
requirement to ensure a district
representative with the
authority to commit resources
is a member of every Team.
determination of specific
learning disabilities have been
revised under the recently
reauthorized IDEA 2004.
Therefore, until final
implementing regulations have
been adopted, the Department
is not making findings related
to school district practices
under this criterion.
From meetings held between
January 2007 and June 2007,
the district will randomly select
and submit a copy of five (5)
evaluation Team meeting
attendance sheets from each
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 2 of 15
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
school along with a list of staff
with the authority to commit
resources from each school.
SE 9
Eligibility
determination

Student
Records

The district does not
consistently ensure that a
Team meeting is
convened within 45
school working days after
receipt of the parent’s
written consent to
evaluate.
The district will submit a copy
of the memo and additional
documentation to the
Department on or before July
30, 2007.
The district will provide a
memo to all applicable staff
reminding them of the
requirement to convene a Team
meeting within 45 school
working days after receipt of
the parent’s written consent to
evaluate.
From meetings held between
January 2007 and June 2007,
the district will randomly select
and submit a copy of five (5)
evaluation consent forms and
corresponding evaluation Team
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 3 of 15
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
meeting attendance sheets from
each school.
The district will submit a copy
of the memo and additional
documentation to the
Department on or before July
30, 2007.
SE 12
Frequency of reevaluation

Student
Records
Staff
Interviews
SE 13
Progress Reports
and content
The district ensures that a reevaluation is conducted, with
parental consent, every three
years consistent with the
requirements of federal law or
unless otherwise agreed to by
the parent and district.

Student records and staff
interviews indicate
progress reports are
provided to parents of
special education students
as often as parents are
informed of the progress
of non-disabled students.
However progress reports,
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 4 of 15
The district will provide a
memo to all applicable staff
reminding them of the
requirement to address whether
a student’s progress is
sufficient to enable the student
to achieve the goal by the end
of the IEP period.
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
while often extremely
detailed, do not
consistently address
whether the student’s
progress is sufficient to
enable the student to
achieve the goal by the
end of the IEP period.
From progress reports written
between January 2007 and
June 2007, the district will
randomly select and submit a
copy of progress reports for
five (5) students from each
school
The district will submit a copy
of the memo and additional
documentation to the
Department on or before July
30, 2007.
SE 18A
(# 1 and #2)
IEP development
and content
SE 19
Extended
evaluation

Student
Records
The Team develops an IEP that
contains all required elements
under this criterion.

Student
Records
The Team, with parental
consent, agrees to and
appropriately uses the extended
evaluation process in the event
a student is found eligible for
special education but finds the
evaluation information
Staff
Interviews
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 5 of 15
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 20
Least restrictive
program
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective


Method(s)
of
Verification
Student
Records
Staff
Interviews
SE 24
Notice to parent

Student
Records
Staff
Interviews
SE 28
Parent provided
IEP or notice of
no eligibility
together with
notification of
procedural
safeguards and
parents’ rights
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

The district does not
consistently provide the
parent with a copy of the
proposed IEP within 3 –5
school working days after
the Team meeting.
The district will provide a
memo to applicable staff
reminding them of the
requirement to provide the
parent with a copy of the
proposed IEP within 3 – 5
school working days after the
Team meeting.
insufficient to develop a full or
partial IEP.
The Team selects programs
that are the least restrictive
environment for students and
states why removal, if any, is
considered critical to the
student’s program.
The district provides the parent
with required notice regarding
proposal or refusal to initiate or
change the identification,
evaluation, or educational
placement of the child or the
provision of FAPE.
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 6 of 15
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
From meetings held between
January 2007 and June 2007,
the district will randomly select
five (5) IEPs and submit a copy
of their Administrative Data
Sheet (ADM 1 form) and
corresponding Notice of
Proposed School District
Action (N 1 form) from each
school.
The district will submit a copy
of the memo and additional
documentation to the
Department on or before July
30, 2007.
SE 32
Parent advisory
council for
special education

Documents
The district ensures that at least
one annual workshop is
conducted within the district on
the rights of students and their
parents/guardians under state
and federal special education
laws and does support a parent
advisory council.
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 7 of 15
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective

SE 36
IEP
implementation,
accountability,
and financial
responsibility
SE 37
Procedures for
approved and
unapproved out
of district
placements
SE 41
Age span
requirements
SE 42
Programs for
young children
three and four
years of age

SE 51
Appropriate
special education

Method(s)
of
Verification
Student
Records
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
The district ensures that all
required elements under this
criterion are implemented.
Staff
Interviews

Student
Records

Student
Records
Staff
Interviews
Documents
The district ensures monitoring
plans are completed and placed
in the student’s records for
students placed in approved
and unapproved out of district
placements.
This criterion was not a
compliance issue at any of the
district’s elementary schools.
The district ensures that it will
apply for a waiver with the
Department if a Team allows a
five-year old child to attend a
program designed for three and
four year olds.
The district ensures that
individuals who provide or
supervise the provision of
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 8 of 15
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
teacher
certification or
licensure
SE 52
Appropriate
certifications or
licenses for
related service
providers
SE 54
Professional
development
regarding special
education
SE 55
Special
education
facilities and
classroom
SE 56
Special
education
programs and
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
special education services are
appropriately certified.

Documents
The district ensures that
individuals who provide or
supervise the provision of
related services are
appropriately certified.

Documents
Staff
Interviews

On-site
review

Documents
The district ensures that it
considers the needs of all staff
in developing training
opportunities and provides a
variety of offerings including
all required topics.
The district provides facilities
and classrooms that maximize
the inclusion of eligible
students into the life of the
school.
The district ensures that special
education programs, services
and administrative areas are
regularly evaluated.
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 9 of 15
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
services are
evaluated
MOA 18
(formerly SE
50)
Responsibilities
of the school
principal
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective


Method(s)
of
Verification
Documents
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
The district meets all required
elements under this criterion.
Staff
Interviews
SE 14
Review and
revision of IEPs

SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

Special Education Criteria Created or Revised in Response to IDEA-2004
Student
The district ensures that IEPs
Records
are reviewed on or before the
anniversary date of their
Staff
implementation date to
Interviews
consider the student’s progress
and develop a new IEP.
Documents
The district ensures that
required resolution dispute
Staff
procedures are followed
Interviews
including convening a meeting
to attempt resolution and
completing a legally binding
agreement if the resolution
session is successful or seeking
mediation when agreed to by
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 10 of 15
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s)
of
Verification
SE 30
Notice of
procedural
safeguards

Documents
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities more
than 10 days

Student
Records
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
the parent and district.
The district is using the
Massachusetts Interim Notice
of Procedural Safeguards and
provides it to parents as
required.
The district ensures students
with disabilities, who are
suspended 10 consecutive days
or 10 cumulative days that
constitute a pattern, are
provided all required
procedural safeguards
including a Team meeting to
conduct a manifestation
determination and provides a
functional behavioral
assessment, and behavior
intervention plan if the
behavior is determined to be a
manifestation of the student’s
disability.
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 11 of 15
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Basis of Determination
Action
that Implementation of
Determined
Corrective Action was
Not to have
Incomplete or
been
Ineffective Or
Implemented
Basis of Finding of New
or Not to
Noncompliance
have been
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

HAMPSHIRE REGIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
English Learner Education (ELE) Requirements
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
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
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
assess limited English proficient (LEP) students on an
annual basis and will implement those procedures when an
LEP student or students enroll.
Documentation indicates the district will have all LEP
students participate in MCAS testing scheduled for their
respective grades and maintain copies of MCAS scores in
student records when an LEP student or students enroll.
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures
for the initial identification of LEP students. The district
utilizes a home language survey and does complete required
assessments when a student’s first language is not English.
However the district does not consistently provide a home
None
None
The district will provide a memo to all applicable staff reminding them of the
requirement to provide a home language survey to all parents of newly
registering students and to place the completed home language survey in the
students’ files.
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 12 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number and
Topic
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
language survey to all parents of newly registering students.
ELE 4
Waiver Procedures
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
ELE 6
Program Exit and
Readiness
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
ELE 8
Declining Entry to
a Program
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
provide parents of LEP students with program descriptions
of the district’s ELE programs in a language they can
understand and of the parent’s right to apply for a waiver and
will implement those procedures when an LEP student or
students enroll.
Documentation indicates the district does have program
placement and structure plans for LEP students and will
implement this plan when an LEP student or students enroll.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The district will copy and submit five (5) completed home language surveys.
The district will submit a copy of the memo and additional documentation to the
Department on or before July 30, 2007.
None
None
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
appropriately determine an LEP student’s program readiness
and exit level and will implement those procedures when an
LEP student or students enroll.
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
include parents/guardians of LEP students in matters
pertaining to their children’s education and will implement
those procedures when an LEP student or students enroll.
None
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures
for parents/guardians of LEP students who choose to decline
entry to a district program and will implement those
procedures when an LEP student or students enroll.
See ELE 5
None
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
notify parents, on an annual basis, of their child’s level of
English proficiency, program placement, and right to apply
for a waiver and will implement those procedures when an
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 13 of 15
None
See ELE 5
None
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
LEP student or students enroll.
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
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
ELE 16
Equitable Facilities
(To be reviewed
during next CPR
visit)
ELE 17
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
provide equal access to academic programs and services to
all LEP students and will implement those procedures when
an LEP student or students enroll.
None
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
provide equal access to nonacademic and extracurricular
programs to all LEP students and will implement those
procedures when an LEP student or students enroll.
None
Documentation indicates the district does have procedures to
appropriately monitor formerly limited English proficient
(FLEP) students and will implement those procedures when
an LEP student or students enroll.
Documentation indicates the district utilizes appropriately
licensed personnel to administer required assessments. While
the district does not currently have LEP students, the district
will be providing training to staff in sheltered English
immersion (SEI) in the 2006-2007 school year.
Documentation indicates that while the district while the
district does not currently have LEP students, the district will
be providing training to staff in sheltered English immersion
(SEI) in the 2006-2007 school year.
None
Not Rated
None
Documentation indicates the district does not have a formal
None
None
The district will provide a copy of the evaluation plan developed with the
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 14 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number and
Topic
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements and
Program
Evaluation
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
procedure to evaluate the effectiveness of its ELE program
but has a plan in place to work with a consultant in the 20062007 school year to evaluate its progress and status to date.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
consultant to the Department on or before July 30, 2007.
Not Rated
Hampshire Regional School District – Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
July 10, 2006
Page 15 of 15
None
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW
School District: Hampshire Regional School District
Westhampton, Southampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield-Goshen
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
M I D – CY C L E P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
Date
Prepared:
Prepared by:
Area:
Criterion #:
(Progress Report information should address only one criterion per page.)
Page ___ of ___