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
May 8, 2006
Sheldon H. Berman, Superintendent
Hudson Public School District
155 Apsley Street
Hudson, MA 01749
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Berman:
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 Hudson Public
School District Coordinated Program Review Report issued on July 2, 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.”) 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 selfassessment 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 Mid-cycle Review Chairperson or call Robyn Dowling-Grant in Program Quality Assurance Services at 781338-3732. 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 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 May 25,
2006.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 1 of 2
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 781-338-3722.
Sincerely,
Susan D. Nichols, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Christopher Yates, School Committee Chairperson
Mary Larrivee, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 2 of 2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Hudson Public School District
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: March 15-17, 2006
Date of this Report: May 8, 2006
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings Regarding
Corrective Action Plan
Activities
Or
Basis of Findings Regarding
Implementation of New IDEA
Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or Additional
Issues
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Special
Education
Requirements
(including new
IDEA-2004
Requirements
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 1 of 15
Required Corrective
Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 6
Determination
of Transition
Services
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
Partially
Implemented
Student
Record
Review,
Documentation
and Interviews
Basis of Findings Regarding
Corrective Action Plan
Activities
Or
Basis of Findings Regarding
Implementation of New IDEA
Requirements
The IEP Teams in the district
meet to determine needed
transition services for students
who are transitioning from one
school building to another.
The district ensures that students
are invited to IEP meetings at
which transition services are
proposed and discussed.
For students who will be
approaching graduation, post
secondary agencies and other
adult human services agencies,
as appropriate, are invited to
attend IEP meetings.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or Additional
Issues
Identified

Partially
Implemented
Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
The students’ vision
statement and course of
study in the IEP do not
always address the
students’ desired future
goals, post-secondary
education, vocational
training, integrated
employment, continuing
or adult education.
Record review indicated
that not all Teams are
consistently documenting
transition and linking the
students’ need and
interests to the skills
needed to acquire them.
IEP Teams are completing
appropriate 688 referrals.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 2 of 15
Required Corrective
Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
By September 20, 2006
submit a narrative description
of how course of study
considerations are addressed
and documented in a
student’s IEP and in the
development of transition
goals and objectives in the
Team meeting.
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
Partially
Implemented
Student
Record
Review,
Documentation
and Interviews
All parents are participating in
IEP meetings consistently
Partially
Implemented
IEP Teams consistently have all
required people in attendance at
initial and re-evaluations.
SE 9 Eligibility
Determination

Student
Record review
and interviews
In general, the school district
meets timeline requirements for
determination of eligibility and
provision of documentation to
parents
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

Student
Record review,
Interviews
Student record reviews indicated
that the district conducts a full
re-evaluation of the student
every three years consistent with
the requirements of federal
special education law.
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
Partially
Implemented
Student
Record review,
Interviews
Parents are receiving progress
reports as often as parents are
receiving progress reports of
non-disabled students
Partially
Implemented
A person who can
commit the school district
resources is not always at
annual meetings, and the
staff present are not
always clear who does
have this authority.
The review of student
records indicated that
progress reports do not
consistently and
specifically address the
goals or indicate if progress
was sufficient to meet the
goal by the end of the
school year.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 3 of 15
By September 20, 2006,
submit a revised list of the
staff in the district that can
commit the district resources
and a description of what this
responsibility entails. And
that this information had
been reviewed and discussed
with appropriate school
personnel.
By September 20, 2006,
provide training for special
education staff, including
related service providers on
this requirement and provide
the agenda and attendance
sheet to the Department
In addition, provide a random
sample of 5 progress reports
from each school building, to
the Department.
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
SE 15
Outreach by
the district

Student
Record review,
Interviews
Student record reviews indicated
that IEP Teams meet to review
the student’s progress and to
review, revise, or develop a new
IEP

Documentation
and Interviews
Documentation and interviews
indicated that the district
conducts frequent outreach
activities in the community from
which promotion or transfer of
students in need of special
education may be expected, or
which would include students in
need of special education.
SE 17
Initiation of
services at age
three and early
Intervention
Transition
Procedures

Student
Record review,
Interviews
The school district implements
all procedures appropriately to
ensure the effective transition of
young children.
SE 18A #1 and
#2
IEP
Development
and Content
Partially
Implemented
Student
Record review,
Interviews
The IEPs generally include
specially designed instruction to
meet the needs of the individual
student and related services that
are necessary to allow the
student to benefit from the
specially designed instruction.
Partially
Implemented
A review of student records
indicated that IEP Teams
do not consistently develop
goals for students that are
annual or measurable.
Some IEPs had goals or
objectives that did not
change from the previous
year.
Some IEPs did not address
all areas of disability or
need that was apparent in
the assessments. In
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 4 of 15
By September 20, 2006,
provide training for special
education staff, including
related service providers on
this requirement and provide
the agenda and attendance
sheet to the Department.
Submit the goals and
objectives from 5 student
IEPs from each school
building written after the
training
addition, in some cases, the
student’s goals were not
linked to the student’s need
for specialized instruction,
as indicated by the
assessment reports and the
student’s lack of progress
in the general education
curriculum.
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

Documentation
and interviews
The district is implementing the
new requirement for offering
dispute resolution meetings prior
to proceeding to the BSEA.
SE 30
Notice of
procedural
safeguards

Documentation
and interviews
The district is providing parents
with copies of the interim notice
of procedural safe guards or, in
past years, the parent’s rights
brochure.
Student
Record review,
Interviews
The district has written
procedures for the suspension of
students with disabilities.
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days

The district will conduct
Functional Behavioral
Assessments when indicated.
The district’s manifestation
determination procedures are
consistent with federal
requirements, and the
manifestation determination.
SE 49
Related
Services

Student
Record review,
Interviews
The district provides and
arranges for a variety of related
services to students.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 5 of 15
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
MOA 9

Documentation
and interviews
MOA 21
Staff Training
Regarding
Civil Rights
responsibilities

Documentation
and interviews
The school district ensures that
prospective employers comply
with state and federal laws that
prohibit discrimination in hiring
or employment practices and
issues a Statement of Assurance
from prospective Employers of
Students letter to them to
document this assurance.
The school district includes all
areas regarding staff civil rights
responsibilities, including
discrimination and harassment.
Other
Regulated
Programs
Addressed
During this
Mid-cycle
Review
SE 18B
Determination
of Placement;
provision of
IEP to Parent

Student
Record review
and interviews
A review of the record reviews
indicated that IEP Teams
determine placement for the
student and provide the
proposed IEP within required
timelines consistent with state
special education regulations.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 6 of 15
SE 21
School day and
School Year
requirements

Student
Record review
and interviews
IEP Teams consider the need for
extended day or school year
services, which is individualized
to meet the needs of students.
SE 22

Student
Record review
and interviews
The school district provides the
services in the IEP without delay
and ensures that an IEP is in
effect for all eligible students at
the beginning of the school year.
Partially
Implemented
Student
Record review
and interviews
IEP
Implementation
and Availability
SE 24
FAPE
The district does provide notice
to parents regarding proposal or
refusal to initiate or change the
identification, evaluation, or
educational placement of the
child or the provision of FAPE.
SE 32

Documentation
and interviews
The district has a special
education parent advisory
council that has By-Laws, meets
regularly, has access to district
resources and is involved with
training and community events.
SE 45

Documentation
The High school Student
Partially
Implemented
The district’s required
notice to parents regarding
the Narrative Description
of School District Proposal
(N1) contains incomplete
information. The narrative
does not always answer the
guiding questions
appropriately and
sometimes the information
is not included at all.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 7 of 15
By September 20, 2006,
provide training for special
education staff, on this
requirement and provide the
agenda and attendance sheet
to the Department.
Submit the Narrative
Description of School
District proposal from 5
student IEPs from each
school building written after
the training.
Handbook contains all of the
required procedures for
suspensions up to 10 days and
after 10 days.
(high school
handbook)
SE 54
Professional
Development

Documentation
and interviews
The school district offers an
extensive array of professional
development opportunities for
all staff in the district. There is a
strong focus on differentiated
instruction which is a school
district initiative.
In addition, the district offers its
staff, courses for college credit.
SE 55
Special
Education
Facilities and
classrooms
Partially
Implemented
Observations
The elementary schools,
Mulready, Forest Avenue and
Farley, and the high school meet
all of the required elements of
this criterion.
Partially
Implemented
Hubert Kindergarten
Center
Physical therapy and
occupational therapy
services cannot always be
provided in a private space
and when it is provided in
the hall or building alcove
is not acceptable for its
purpose.
The Special Education
Resource Room is too
small to provide small
group instruction.
JFK Middle School
The resource room’s size is
not sufficient and the
resource room area it
currently uses is not
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 8 of 15
adequate.
At times the hallways are
used for small group
instruction and testing.
The speech and language
room is off the cafeteria but
it cannot be used during
lunch times and it is not
private.
The room used for Physical
therapy is unacceptable. It
is in a storage space that is
not comparable to all other
areas in the school.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 9 of 15
Hudson Public Schools
English Learning Education (ELE) Requirements
Mid-Cycle Review Advisory Comments Resulting From The Department’s Review Of Local Self-Assessment Documents
(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
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
The district has developed appropriate procedures and has
trained personnel to ensure the appropriate administration of
required annual assessments. Evidence was provided that LEP
students participate in annual assessments.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
The district reports that all limited English proficient high
school students participate in the annual administration of the
MCAS but did not submit any information documenting that
elementary and middle schools LEP students participate.
The district is providing bilingual dictionaries.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
By September 20, 2006, submit a list of all LEP students and when they
participated in MCAS testing at all required grades.
By September 20, 2006 submit a description of the accommodations for all
academic subject matter testing in English and guidelines that address the option
of 1st yr students in the USA to not take the MCAS.
The district did not provide any descriptions of
accommodations for academic subject matter testing in English
or guidelines that address the option of 1st yr students in the
USA to not take the MCAS.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
The district has a home language survey that is translated into
the major languages of the district.
By September 20, 2006 submit the district’s written policies and procedures used
to identify limited-English proficient students.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 10 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
The district has waiver forms but they do not contain a
description of the following waiver implementation practices:
a. When a parent requests/opts out of program
b. How parents are informed of their right to apply for a
waiver, and how are program descriptions provided to
parent (native language, etc.)
c. Policies and procedures for handling/processing
waiver requests for students under the age of 10.
d. Policy and procedure for processing waivers for
students over the age of 10.
The Farley Elementary School and the High School ELE
program descriptions were not consistent with existing
program.
The district did not provide evidence that LEP students are
provided with SEI form qualified teachers.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
By September 20, 2006, submit the district’s written waiver policies and
procedures.
The district does not have a program description.
By September 20, 2006, submit a detailed narrative from each building outlining
the nature of the English Learner Program, as it exists in each building. In
addition, cite which professional development was provided to each teacher
instructing LEP students, and the dates of the training, including resume of trainer
and agenda, and attendance sheets.
There are no policy and procedures for placing students in
ELE program, training regular education teachers in sheltered
English immersion, ESL programming, etc.
By September 20, 2006, indicate how LEP students at each building are provided
with English Language Development instruction, including the certification of
staff providing the instruction.
The district does not have program placement criteria.
NOTE program concept and structure are not implemented
consistently across the district. HS ELE students are
segregated.
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
The information the school district provided did not include all
of the required elements of this criterion. There was no
description of policy and procedures that include program exit
criteria for student from LEP (Limited English Proficient) to
FLEP (Formally Limited Proficient).
By September 20, 2006, submit the district’s written policies and procedures for
exiting students from the ELL programs to English speaking classes that include
all required areas.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 11 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
The school district has developed a mechanism for including
parents or guardians of LEP students regarding their children’s
education.
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
The school district reports that they have not had any parents
decline entry into the program or have had parents request a
two-way bilingual or other ELE program. And further states
that it will develop strategies to provide English language
support to students if a parent declines entry
By September 20, 2006, submit the district’s written policies and procedures that
describe the implementation practices that includes the English support to
students whose parents have declined entry to district’s Sheltered English
Immersion program.
The district submitted a class roster that included the names,
grade, ID #, room and the class size but did not provide the
home language, the years in the ELL program and the
language proficiency of the students.
By September 20, 2006, submit updated class rosters (including student initials,
home language, years in program and current language proficiency)
The district reports that they only group students of different
ages together in instructional settings if their levels of English
proficiency are similar and ensures that students are receiving
effective content instruction that is based on the English
Language proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The school district submitted a description of its
implementation practices related to all areas of parental
notification.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 12 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
Although the school district states that LEP students are not
segregated from English speaking peers, it was evident that
students at the high school remained in English language
classes for the entire day with minimum access to their English
speaking peers and curriculum
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
By September 20, 2006, submit a plan by which the district can change their
English language program so that LEP students have equal access to academic
programs and services
By September 20, 2006, submit a description of the revised program for LEP
students at the high school.
There were no students in classes with sheltered English
instruction and students were only in English Language
classes. Some students were going to a few content area
classes but without the necessary native language support.
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
and Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
The school district reports that LEP students are encouraged to
participate in non-academic and extracurricular activities
By September 20, 2006, submit a list of LEP students and the non-academic and
extra curricular activities they participate in.
The school district submitted a statement that it actively
monitors students who have exited the program and provides
language support services, if needed, but did not include
procedures of how this will be done and how the language
support will be provided.
By September 20, 2006, submit a description of follow up policies and
procedures that include active monitoring for two years and how it will provide
language support services, if needed.
The school district submitted information that addresses how
adults can access English language and literacy skills classes
that are free of charge.
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
All ELL teachers are certified by the Department of Education.
By September 20, 2006 submit a description of the criteria used to determine
English language teacher fluency, including assessment procedures.
The information submitted did not include a description of
practices for ensuring fluency of all of their teachers.
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 13 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities -
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
The school district has provided training in assessments of
speaking and listening (MELA-0).
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
By September 20, 2006, submit the district’s plan to provide all required
professional development training.
The school district has not provided training in sheltering
content instruction and ELL teachers have not received
required training in second language learning and teaching.
The school district ensures that LEP students are provided
facilities, materials and services comparable to those provided
to the overall population.
(To be
reviewed
during next
CPR visit)
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
ELE 18 Records
of LEP
Students(To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
All LEP students are reported on the district’s SIMS report.
The district conducts periodic evaluations of the effectiveness
of its ELE program.
The district submitted a description of record keeping
practices.
Of the student records that were reviewed, the home language
survey, progress reports, and report cards were not in the
records.
The district should anticipate that the Department would
examine the individual records of students identified as
Limited English Proficient during the course of a
Coordinated Program Review. The district may wish to
consider conducting its own preliminary record review
and examining the contents of student records using the
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 14 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Department’s procedures to determine its compliance with
state requirements.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Hudson Public School Coordinated Program Review Mid-Cycle Report May 8, 2006
Page 15 of 15