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 19, 2006
Dr. Chris Augusta-Scott
Superintendent of Schools
Norfolk Public Schools
70 Boardman St.
Norfolk, MA 02056
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Dr. Augusta-Scott:
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 Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated
Program Review Report issued on August 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 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
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 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/ .
The onsite team would like to commend the following areas that were brought to its attention and that the team believes have a
significant and positive impact on the delivery of educational services for students enrolled in the Norfolk Public Schools.
These areas are as follows:
 The Team process is run in a way that facilitates positive collaboration between the district and parents.
 The quality of the goals and objectives on the IEPs is commendable.
 Assessments completed for initial evaluations and reevaluations are thoroughly done and easily readable.
 Specific programs, in particular the math, reading, and pre-K programs, are of high quality.
 The district’s commitment to providing numerous opportunities for staff members to access professional development is
commendable.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 1 of 15
The Department will notify you of your district's next regularly scheduled Coordinated Program Review several months before
it is to occur. At this time we anticipate the Department's next routine monitoring visit to occur sometime during the 2009
school year, unless the Department determines that there is some reason to schedule this visit earlier.
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 June 2, 2006.
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 781-338-3704.
Sincerely,
Matthew Deninger, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Kim Williams, School Committee Chairperson
Encl.:
Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 2 of 15
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): August 26, 2003
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: December 4, 2003
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: January 16, 2004, October 28, 2004, November 16, 2004,
April 11, 2005, August 26, 2005, and January 23, 2006
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: March 13-14, 2006
Date of this Report: May 19, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 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
(previously SE 18B)
According to the district’s
own tracking sheet, during
the 2005-2006 school year
IEPs are being provided to
parents within three school
days 64% of the time. While
this is an improvement from
previous years, this criterion
is not significantly
implemented.
The district will continue
monitoring the provision of IEPs
using the same tracking sheet
through the end of the ’05-’06
school year and into the ’06-’07
school year. Implementation
will be verified by review of the
tracking sheet to be submitted
no later than July 15, 2006, and
an onsite record review to occur
no later than October 1, 2006.
The district will continue to
monitor the timely provision of
IEPs using its aforementioned
tracking sheet. Implementation
will be verified by review of the
tracking sheet to be submitted
Special
Education
Criteria
Originally Cited
in CPR Report
and Monitored
in Mid-cycle
SE 9: Eligibility
determination:
Timelines for
evaluation,
provision of IEP
and/or
identification of
other needed
instructional
programs.
SE 10: End of
school year
evaluations.


Record review indicated that
IEPs developed at the end of
the school year were not
consistently being provided
within 14 days after the end
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 4 of 15
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 18B:
Determination of
placement;
provision of IEP
to parent.
SE 23:
Confidentiality of
personally
identifiable
information
SE 24: Notice to
parent
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


Record
Review and
Interviews
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
of the school year.
no later than July 15, 2006, and
an onsite record review no later
than October 1, 2006.
Record review indicated that
most special education
records did not contain a log
of access. (This criterion
was not previously cited in
the 2003 CPR.)
The district will include logs of
access in every special education
record. Implementation will be
verified by review of a sample
log of access to be submitted no
later than July 15, 2006, and an
onsite record review no later
than October 1, 2006.
The district should provide
training for the staff members
whose responsibility it is for
completing notice forms.
Evidence of training (agenda,
sign-in sheet) will be submitted
to the Department no later than
This criterion is fully implemented,
except for the immediate provision
of the IEP to parents, which has
been addressed under SE 9.


Record review indicated that
notice forms (N1 and N2)
were not consistently
completed. On some forms,
page 2 did not include the
required guiding questions
that must be answered. On
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 5 of 15
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 28: Parent
provided the IEP
or notice of no
eligibility together
with notification
of procedural
safeguards and
parents' rights.
SE 50:
Responsibilities of
the School
Principal and
Administrator of
Special Education.
SE 56: Special
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



Record
review and
interviews
When appropriate, the district
provides notice forms along with
the Interim Notice of Procedural
Safeguards to parents. This was
verified by looking at the
enclosures listed on the notice
form, as well as through interviews.
Record
review and
interviews
Due to a change in criterion, this
will be addressed under MOA 18.
Documentation
The district hired a consultant to
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
other forms, the answers to
these guiding questions were
not thorough, depriving
parents of their right to
receive adequate notice.
July 15, 2006. Implementation
will be verified during an onsite
record review no later than
October 1, 2006.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 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
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

education
programs and
services are
evaluated.

Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
Method(s)
of
Verification
review
conduct a study of the special
education department and its
various programs and services.
The study details the current status
of the department, as well as
considerations for the future.
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
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
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
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 7 of 15
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
Interviews
The district only runs PK-6, so
none of the secondary transition
criteria apply. The district does
provide some transition services
from PK to K, and from grade 6 to
the King Philip Middle School.
Record
review and
interviews
The IEP Team composition is
strong in this district. All members
are in attendance and participate in
meetings.

Record
review and
interviews

Record
review and
interviews
Reevaluations are done every three
years in this district. In addition,
when a student is suspected to be
no longer in need of special
education services, reevaluations
are always completed.
Progress reports are complete,
thorough, address all goals in the
IEP, and are always sent out to
parents in a timely manner.
SE 6
Determination
of Transition
Services

SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance

SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes
SE 30
Notice of

Record
review and
interviews
Documentation

and record
review
Documentation

review, record
IEPs are reviewed at least on an
annual basis. The district has also
adjusted to the new IDEA 2004
provisions, allowing amendments
to be made without convening the
Team.
When receiving notice of a request
for a hearing with the BSEA, the
district convenes a resolution
meeting within 15 days.
The Interim Notice of Procedural
Safeguards was mailed to parents
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 8 of 15
procedural
safeguards
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days

review and
interviews
of special education students in the
fall of 2005.
Documentation
review
The district’s procedures for
suspension of students with
disabilities are consistent with
federal law.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 9 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
Requirements
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements

MOA 18:
Responsibilities of
the school
principal
MOA 21: Staff
training regarding
civil rights
responsibilities.
(previously SE 50)
The district, although it has a
Curriculum Accommodation
Plan, has not updated the
plan since the 2002-2003
school year, and has not
made its staff members
aware of the document’s
several uses.

Documentation
review and
interviews
The district submitted evidence in
its documentation that civil rights
training had occurred on 8/31/05.
The specific topic was sexual
harassment.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 10 of 15
The district will submit a plan for
the revision of the DCAP. The
plan should be submitted to the
Department no later than July
15, 2006. The DCAP will be
revised before the start of the
2006-2007 school year, and each
staff member will be given a copy
and instructed on its purpose and
uses.
Verification will be made during
an onsite visit to occur no later
than October 1, 2006.
MOA 22:
Accessibility of
district programs
and services for
students with
limited physical
mobility.

The district has spent
$23,595 on repairs to rectify
accessibility issues from
June 2003 through June
2004. The FreemanCentennial School is the
facility in most need of
renovations. The district
ensures that students with
disabilities have access to
classrooms and to all of the
same activities as other
students.
The H. Olive Day School is
free from accessibility
issues. However, sink
fixtures in the PK
classrooms are large and not
easily accessible for any
student, let alone for
students with limited
physical mobility.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 11 of 15
The district will submit an
update of accessibility
improvements made during the
2005-2006 school year no later
than July 15, 2006. The district
will also submit any plans for
the refurbishment of the
Freeman-Centennial School no
later than July 15, 2006.
NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
English Learner Education (ELE) Requirements
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
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The district maintains that “tests are being ordered,” however
there is no indication of which specific tests are being ordered
and for whom they are being ordered.
The district must develop policies and procedures for the annual assessment of
limited English proficient students. Policies and procedures will be submitted
to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
The district does not have policies and procedures regarding
the MCAS participation of LEP students.
The district must develop policies and procedures for limited English proficient
students’ MCAS participation. Policies and procedures will be submitted to
the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
A home language survey was completed, and is now part of
new student registration packets. However, there is no
indication of a translated version of the home language
survey.
The district does not have waiver forms or policies and
procedures for waivers.
The district must have a translated home language survey in a common language
spoken in the immediate area. Copies of the translated home language survey
will be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
The district does not currently have an ELE program of any
kind.
The district must develop policies and procedures for the parent’s right to waive
ELE services. The district must also develop the waiver forms. Policies and
procedures, along with waiver forms, will be submitted to the Department
no later than July 15, 2006.
The district must develop a program and placement structure for LEP students
and submit the program’s description to the Department no later than July 15,
2006.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 12 of 15
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
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
The district does not have policies and procedures regarding
program exit and readiness.
The district must develop policies and procedures for limited English proficient
students’ program exit. A description of the program will be submitted to the
Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
The district does not have a description of how they plan to
involve parents of students who are LEP.
The district must develop policies and procedures for involvement of parents of
limited English proficient students. Policies and procedures will be submitted
to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
The district does not have policies and procedures regarding
students whose parents have declined entry to an ELL
program.
The district must develop policies and procedures for systems that support LEP
students whose parent have declined entry in the ELL program. Policies and
procedures will be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
The district does not have policies and procedures regarding
the instructional grouping of LEP students.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding the instructional
grouping of LEP students. Policies and procedures will be submitted to the
Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The district does not have policies, procedures, or supporting
documentation regarding the required elements of parent
notices.
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
The district does not address the requirements of equal access
to academic programs and services for LEP students.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding notices sent to
parents of LEP students. In addition, the district must develop notice forms that
include all required elements. Policies and procedures, as well as a sample
notice form, will be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding equal access to
academic programs and services for LEP students. Policies and procedures will
be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
and Extracurricular
The district does not address the requirements of equal access
to nonacademic and extracurricular programs for LEP
students.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding equal access to
nonacademic and extracurricular programs for LEP students. Policies and
procedures will be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 13 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Programs
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
The district does not have policies or procedures regarding the
monitoring activities provided for students who have exited
the ELL program.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding the monitoring
activities provided for students who have exited the ELL program. Policies and
procedures will be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
Though the district maintains that one teacher in the district is
ELL licensed, the district did not provide the teacher’s name,
position, or licensure information. The district must have an
ESL certified teacher in place, as well as teachers at each
grade level who are trained in Sheltered English Immersion.
The district should submit a professional development plan for providing
teachers with the Sheltered English Immersion training that is required. The
district should also submit evidence of an ESL-certified teacher. This plan will
be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 14 of 15
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The district must have ongoing professional development
regarding the provision of high quality instruction for LEP
students.
The district should submit a professional development plan for providing
teachers with ongoing training regarding the instruction of LEP students. This
plan will be submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities (To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit)
The district does not have policies or procedures regarding the
provision of equitable facilities for LEP students.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding the provision of
equitable facilities for LEP students. Policies and procedures will be
submitted to the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
While the district has reported its SIMS data, the district does
not conduct periodic evaluations of its ELL program.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding the periodic
evaluation of its ELL program. Policies and procedures will be submitted to
the Department no later than July 15, 2006.
ELE 18 Records
of LEP
Students(To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
The district does not have any students who have been
identified as being LEP. Therefore the district does have
records of LEP students.
Norfolk Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
May 19, 2006
Page 15 of 15