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
December 17, 2007
Judith L. Klimkiewicz, Superintendent
Nashoba Valley Technical High School
100 Littleton Road
Westford, MA 01886
Re: ’07 Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Klimkiewicz:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's ’07 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 Nashoba
Valley Technical High School ’04 Coordinated Program Review Report issued on August 25, 2004. The ’07 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 selfassessment 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 781-3383534. ELE guidance documents are available on the Department’s website at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/ .
The onsite team would like to commend the following programs and practices that were brought to its attention and that
the team believes have a significant positive impact on the education of students enrolled in the Nashoba Valley Technical
High School. These programs and practices are as follows:



The district has made significant progress in addressing areas of previous non-compliance noted in the
most recent Coordinated Program Review
The district has a newly developed inclusion model for the provision of special education services that
required the design of a new schedule to incorporate inclusion classes.
The district has engaged in efforts to provide professional development opportunities for staff and has
worked on bridging the gap between academic and technical teachers
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 district within the timelines specified. You
must submit your statement of assurance to me by January 11, 2008.
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 781-338-3747.
Sincerely,
Joel Krakow, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
cc:
Jeffrey Nellhaus, Acting Commissioner of Education
Kevin McKenzie, School Committee Chairperson
Melissa LeRay, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: ’07 Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Nashoba Valley Technical High School
ONSITE MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND OF CERTAIN NEW REQUIREMENTS
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): April 12-16, 2004
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: December 13, 2004
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: October 7, 2004
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: March 12, 13, 2007
Date of this Report: December 17, 2007
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Special Ed.
Criteria Cited
in CPR Report
and Monitored
in Mid-cycle
MOA 4
Disproportionality
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Review of data
The district was not cited for
noncompliance in this area in

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
Nashoba Valley Technical High School Coordinated Program Review ’07 Mid-cycle Report
December 17, 2007
Page 1 of 14
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

the most recent CPR in 2004.
(if Cited in the
CPR Report)
SE 9
IEP Timelines
SE 15
Outreach
SE 18A
IEP
development
and content
SE 18B
Provision of
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective




Review of
student records,
documentation
and interviews.
Review of student records
and interviews demonstrated
that regulatory IEP timelines
are being met.
Review of
student records,
and
documentation
Review of records and
documentation showed that
the district contacts a wide
variety of agencies and
settings
Review of
student records,
and
documentation
Review of records and
documentation showed that
the district has changed its
service delivery model to
focus on more inclusion.
Training has also been
provided to staff for
differentiated instruction,
especially for vocational
staff.
Review of
student records
Review of records and
interviews showed that
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
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
SE 22
IEP availability
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

IEP to parent
SE 20
Least restrictive
program
Method(s) of
Verification

and staff
interviews
parents receive the IEP at the
Team meeting.
Review of
student records,
documentation
and staff
interviews
The district has changed the
basic structure of its special
education delivery system,
eliminating academic support
classes and focusing on more
inclusion.
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
Review of documentation
and staff interviews
showed that teachers are
given a list of
accommodations for
students on IEPs but that
they do not receive the
actual IEP.
Please submit a copy of the
district’s policy statement
demonstrating that teachers are
provided with access to each
student’s IEP. Due January 30,
2008.
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


SE 32
Parent advisory
council
SE 34
Continuum
of alternative
services

Review of
student records,
documentation
and staff
interviews
SE 40
Instructional
grouping

Review of
student records,
documentation
and staff
interviews
SE 50
Administration

Review of
student records,
documentation
and staff
interviews
The district has changed its
service delivery model to
provide a broader array of
services to students
Review of documentation
and staff interviews showed
that special education classes
sizes conform to regulations.
Since the Department’s
Coordinated Program review
in 2004, the district has
reorganized its special
education administrative
services, including the hiring
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
Review of documentation
and staff interviews
showed that parents are
not involved in the
planning, development
and evaluation of the
special education
program.
Please submit documentation
to the Department that the PAC
is involved in the review of
special education policies and
programs. Due January 30,
2008.
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

of a full time director. An
outside evaluation of the
district’s special education
services shows much
improvement in the provision
of support services.
SE 54
Professional
development

Review of
documentation
Review of documentation
demonstrated that the district
is providing required training
for staff.
SE 56
Program
evaluation

Review of
documentation
Review of documentation
demonstrated that the district
has evaluated its special
education programs and
services.
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
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Review of
records
Review of records demonstrated
that the district appropriately
plans for transition activities for
students with disabilities
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
Review of records
demonstrated that regular
education teachers are not
always in attendance at
Team meetings.
Please submit a sample of 4-6
student folders reflecting
attendance by regular
education teachers to the
Department by January 30,
2008
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6 ##1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services


SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

Record
review
Review of student records and
interviews demonstrated that reevaluations are completed at
least every three years
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content

Record
review
Progress reports indicated
whether the student’s progress
is adequate to meet the annual
goal as written in the progress
report.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
Criterion
Implemented


Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Record review
Review of student records
showed that the district is
appropriately conducting
annual reviews and amending
IEPs as needed.

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
Criterion
Determine
d to be
Partially
Implement
ed or Not
Implement
ed


N/A
(SE 39A does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
Review of
records and
documentation
Review of student records and
student schedules demonstrated
that students participate in the
general curriculum.
Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Review of records showed
that the district did not
always document that it
notifies the BSEA
regarding any rejected
IEPs received by the
district.
The district will submit a
sample of copies of notices to
the BSEA to the Department
by January 30, 2008.
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
SE 39B
Procedures for
services to
eligible
students in
private schools
in the district
whose parents
reside out of
state
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Review of
student records,
documentation
and staff
interviews
Review of documentation and
staff interviews showed that
although the district has not
had the need to develop any
behavioral plans, a process is
in place if the need arises to
conduct Functional Behavioral
Assessments and Manifestation
Determinations consistent with
federal requirements.
N/A
(SE 39B does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days

Corrective
Action Not
Implement
ed 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
Requirements
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
Other
Regulated
Programs
Monitored
During this
Mid-cycle
Review
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
Requirements
Nashoba Valley Technical Regional High 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 )
There are no Limited English Proficient (LEP) students currently enrolled in the vocational school. The school has established procedures for addressing the
requirements for LEP students under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71A, should they enroll.
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
Implemented
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
Implemented
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
Implemented
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
Implemented
ELE 5
Program
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
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

Placement
and Structure
ELE 6
Program Exit
and
Readiness
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
ELE 8
Declining
Entry to a
Program
Implemented
Implemented
Implemented
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
Implemented
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
Implemented
ELE 11
Equal Access
to Academic
Programs
and Services
ELE 12
Equal Access
to
Implemented
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
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

Nonacademic
and
Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
Implemented
ELE 14
Licensure
Requirements
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
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
Implemented
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities
Implemented
ELE 17
Program
Evaluation
Implemented
ELE 18
Records of
LEP
Students(To be
reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
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