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
June 26, 2007
John Moretti
Superintendent of Schools
Mansfield Public Schools
2 Park Row
Mansfield, MA 02048
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Moretti:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report (MidCycle 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 Mansfield Coordinated Program Review
Report issued on May 28, 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 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 July 13, 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 781-338-3714.
Sincerely,
Nancy Hicks, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Emil Giordano, School Committee Chairperson
Patricia Cosgrove, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Mid-cycle Progress Report Form
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Mansfield Public Schools.
ONSITE MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND OF CERTAIN NEW REQUIREMENTS
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): January 22-30, 2004
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: November 1, 2004
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: May 25, 2005
On-site Verification September 13, 2005
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: May 3-4, 2007
Date of this Report: June 26, 2007
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 1 of 16
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

Special Ed.
Criteria Cited
in CPR Report
and Monitored
in Mid-cycle
SE 3
SLD

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
Statutory requirements for the
determination of specific learning
disabilities have been revised under
the recently reauthorized IDEA
2004. Therefore, the Department is
not making findings related to
school district practices under
Coordinated Program Review
Criterion SE 3. For districts
seeking to resolve a previous
finding in this area, the Department
will extend the date required for
final actions on the part of the
school district and will consider
resolution following the issuance
by MA DOE of guidance regarding
the implementation of related
federal regulations.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 2 of 16
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

SE 5
MCAS
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Record
review

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
Some IEPs contained MCAS
accommodations that were
not consistent with the
accommodations that were
described in the IEP as
necessary for the student to
make effective progress. An
IEP amendment was written
with accommodations to
‘help the student’ with
MCAS’. These
accommodations were not
consistent with those
contained in the IEP.
By November 1, 2007 please
provide as evidence of training on
MCAS accommodations the
following: signed attendance
sheets, a copy of the materials
distributed, the date(s) of the
training, and the name of the
presenter.
The district must develop a plan
for local monitoring of MCAS
accommodations. By February 4,
2008, identify by role, the
person(s) responsible for
conducting the internal monitoring
at each building in the district.
Provide the Department with the
results of monitoring activities,
including: the number of records
reviewed and the rate of
compliance, along with a
description of any additional steps
taken by the district if noncompliance was identified by local
personnel.
SE 7
Transfer of
Rights

Record
review
The record review indicated that
the age of majority discussion was
documented in the IEP one year
prior to the student’s 18th birthday.
The shared decision making choice
is documented and is made in the
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 3 of 16
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
SE 18A
IEP
Development
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective


Record
review and
interviews
Partial
Record
review
SE 24
Notice
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

presence of the Team or the
decision to delegate continued
decision making is made in the
presence of at least one
representative of the school district
and one other witness.
IEPs contain measurable goals that
include benchmarks and objectives.
The specially designed instruction
addresses the methodology of
instruction as well as recommended
instructional modifications.
The record review indicated that
the Notice of Proposed School
District Action (N1) form is now
issued with the consent to evaluate
as required.
Partial
Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Page two of the N1 forms do
not all contain the guiding
questions. In some N1
forms, the questions on page
two were not all addressed.
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
By November 1, 2007 please
provide evidence of training on
the requirements of completing
page 2 of the N1 form. Include
the following: signed attendance
sheets, a copy of the materials
distributed, the date(s) of the
training, and the name of the
presenter.
The district must develop a plan
for local monitoring of the content
of N1 forms. Identify by role, the
person(s) responsible for
conducting the internal monitoring
at each building in the district. By
February 4, 2008 provide the
Department with the results of
monitoring activities, including:
the number of records reviewed
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 4 of 16
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
and the rate of compliance, along
with a description of any
additional steps taken by the
district if non- compliance was
identified by local personnel.
SE 37
Out-OfDistrict
SE 55
SPED facilities
Record
review
Records of students in out-ofdistrict programs contain
documentation of monitoring plans
and actual monitoring.
Interview and
site visit
In the Coordinated Program
Review a classroom in Qualters
Middle School was sited as not
minimizing the separation and
stigmatization of eligible students.
Although this continues not to be
an ideal location, the integration of
special education students with
their peers whenever appropriate
and the location of additional
classes in the area of the library
have reduced the separation and
stigmatization of this classroom.


Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 5 of 16
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Beginning at age 15 the IEP
vision statement did not
always include the student’s
preferences and interests.
By November 1, 2007 please
provide evidence of training on
the requirements of including the
preferences and interests of
students in the IEP vision
statement for students age 15 and
older. Include the following:
signed attendance sheets, a copy
of the materials distributed, the
date(s) of the training, and the
name of the presenter.
Develop a plan for local
monitoring of the content of IEPs
of students age 15 and older
(including students in out of
district placements). Identify by
role, the person(s) responsible for
conducting the internal monitoring
in the district. By February 4,
2008, provide the Department
with the results of monitoring
activities, including: the number
of records reviewed and the rate of
compliance, along with a
description of any additional steps
taken by the district if local
personnel identified
noncompliance.
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6 ##1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services
Partial
Record
review,
documentation and
interviews
Transition needs are discussed at
Team meetings for high school age
students. Transitions goals are part
of the IEP and the Transition
Planning Form is maintained with
the IEP.
Partial
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 6 of 16
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

Record
review,
documentation and
interviews
Team meetings have the necessary
Team members. Although the
district is aware of their ability to
excuse Team members with
parental agreement, it is their
practice to hold meetings with all
required members in attendance.
All team chairpersons have been
delegated with the authority to
commit district resources.
Record
review,
documentation and
interviews

When the Team met more
than once in a school year
the date for the annual
review was changed. The
date for the reevaluation was
then pushed up so that the
date for the reevaluation on
the Administration page of
the IEP was more than three
years from the initial
evaluation or reevaluation.
The district must provide training
on the requirement that a full
reevaluation be completed every
three years unless the parent and
district agree that it is
unnecessary. By November 1,
2007 provide the following:
signed attendance sheets, a copy
of the materials distributed, the
date(s) of the training, and the
name of the presenter.
The district must develop a plan
for local monitoring of the
requirement. Identify by role, the
person(s) responsible for
conducting the internal monitoring
at each building in the district.
Provide by February 4, 2008 the
results of monitoring activities,
including: the number of records
reviewed and the rate of
compliance, along with a
description of any additional steps
taken by the district if noncompliance was identified by local
personnel.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 7 of 16
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
Criterion
Implemented



Method(s)
of
Verification
Record
review and
documenttation
Record
review and
documenttation
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Progress reports contain the
required information and are issued
with required frequency. The
district is preparing the summary of
academic achievement and
functional performance for the
students who will graduate or
exceeded the age of eligibility this
school year. Please note that
recently enacted IDEA-2004
regulations have now changed the
content requirements for IEP
progress reports. Refer to
Administrative Advisory SPED
2007-1 for guidance. The
Department has changed the
progress report form and it is now
available on the Department’s
Special Education website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/
eng_toc.html.
The district reviews the IEP
annually on or before the
anniversary date of the IEP. When
the district and parent agree to
make changes to the student’s IEP
without convening a meeting of the
Team the IEP amendment form is
used.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 8 of 16
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes
SE 33
Involvement in
the General
Curriculum
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification

Record
review
interview and
documentation

Record
review
interview and
documentation
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
The district is aware of their
responsibility regarding the
resolution of disputes when a
parent requests an official hearing.
They are in the process of
scheduling such a meeting.
The district documents the
student’s participation in the
general curriculum in the IEP.
They ensure that there is at least
one Team member in attendance
who is familiar with the general
curriculum.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 9 of 16
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
SE 39A
Procedures for
services to
eligible private
school students
whose parents
reside in the
district
Criterion
Implemented


Method(s)
of
Verification
Record
review
interview and
documentation
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
The district provides services to
eligible private school students
whose parents reside in the district.
They are in the process of
completing the proportionate share
worksheet. By July 15, 2007,
please provide a copy of the
worksheet for the 2006-2007
school year and by November 1,
2007 provide a copy of the
worksheet for the 2007-2008
school year.
Please note that consistent with
recently enacted IDEA-2004
regulations, the public school
district’s procedures for
consultation with private schools
requires the public school to obtain
written affirmation of the private
school representative’s
participation.
Refer to Administrative Advisory
SPED 2007-1 for guidance.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 10 of 16
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
SE 39B
Procedures for
services to
eligible
students in
private schools
in the district
whose parents
reside out of
state
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification

Record
review
interview and
documentation
Partial
Record
review
interview and
documentation
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
It was not clear if staff
members were aware of their
responsibilities when
disciplining a student on a
504 Accommodation plan
and who would be
responsible for tracking the
number of suspensions for
such a student.
By November 1, 2007, the district
must provide a report on who (by
role) at each school would be
responsible for monitoring the
number of suspensions and
implementing required procedures
when disciplining a student on a
504 Accommodation Plan.
The district was aware of their
obligation regarding eligible
students in private schools whose
parents reside out of state. They do
not have any students at this time.
The district has procedures in place
to track student suspensions.
Student records contained a
summary of a Manifestation
Determination meeting.
Partial
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 11 of 16
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
10 A
Handbooks
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s)
of
Verification

Documentation review
MOA 17 A
Physical
Restraints

MOA 21
Civil rights
Training

MOA 24
Curriculum
Review

Interviews
and
documentation
Interviews
and
documentation
Interviews
and
documentation
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 handbooks do not
contain information
regarding the appropriate
procedures for disciplining
students on 504
Accommodation Plans.
Consistent with regulatory
requirements, the district has
implemented staff training on the
use of physical restraints within the
first month of school.
The district provides in-service
training regarding civil rights as
part of the faculty meetings
conducted at the beginning of the
school year.
Teachers review educational
materials as required.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 12 of 16
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Requirements
By July 15, 2007, provide a draft
of the information that will be part
of the student handbooks
pertaining to the discipline of
students with Section 504
Accommodations Plans.
Mansfield Public School
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

ELE 3
Initial
Identification

ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures

ELE 5
Program
Placement
and Structure
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
Not all teachers at the middle and high school level providing content
instruction to limited English proficient students have received
training in sheltered English instruction. Students are not receiving
English as a Second Language instruction by a teacher with an ESL or
an ELL license.
By November 1, 2007, provide a list of teachers
who are providing instruction to LEP students
along with the date that training in SEI was or will
be completed. Provide the name of the teacher
who is providing English as a second language
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 13 of 16
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
instruction to LEP students as well as a copy of the
teacher’s license or waiver.
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
School notices are not translated for parents who are limited English
proficient.
By November 1, 2007, provide a copy of
procedures in place to provide notices to parents
who do not speak English in a language they can
understand. Provide a sample of a translated
school document from each school where there are
LEP students or parents in each language that the
document has been translated.
The district groups students according to their grade level. The
amount of ESL instruction that a student receives is based on their
grade level not on their level of English proficiency. Please review
the curriculum Development Guidance and Instructional Program
Guidance at:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/curriculum.html?section=instructional
Progress reports and report cards are not always written in a language
understandable to the LEP parent/guardian.
By November 1, 2007, describe for each LEP
student, their level of English language proficiency
and a description of the direct ESL instruction that
they receive.

By November 1, 2007, provide a copy of
procedures in place to provide progress reports and
report cards to parents who do not speak English in
a language they can understand. Provide a sample
of a translated report card and progress report from
each school where there are LEP students or
parents.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 14 of 16
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 11
Equal Access
to Academic
Programs
and Services
ELE 12
Equal Access
to
Nonacademic
and
Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
ELE 14
Licensure
Requirements
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



Students are not receiving English as a Second Language instruction
by a teacher with an ESL or an ELL license.
See ELE 5.
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 15 of 16
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
Partial
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities

ELE 17
Program
Evaluation

Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented)
Not all teachers at the middle and high school levels have received
training in sheltered English immersion.
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
See ELE 5.
ELE 18
Records of
LEP
Students(To be
reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
Mid-cycle Report Format 2007.doc
Rev. 1/3/07
Mansfield Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 26, 2007
Page 16 of 16