The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
July 24, 2006
Paul K. Soojian, Superintendent
Northbridge Public School District
87 Linwood Avenue
Whitinsville, MA 01588
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Soojian:
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 Northbridge Public
School District’s Coordinated Program Review Report issued on July 25, 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 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
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 1 of 25
specified. Your statement of assurance must be submitted to the Mid-cycle Review Chairperson by August 17,
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 781-338-3756, or my
supervisor, George Haile at 781- 338- 3780.
Sincerely,
Christina Gentile, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Carroll Paine, Northbridge School Committee Chairperson
Beth Gonyea, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Rev.
3/24/06
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 2 of 25
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Northbridge Public School District
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): July 25, 2003
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: November 13, 2003
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: July 8, 2004; February 4, 2005; July 7, 2005; August 5, 2005
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: April 10-12, 2006
Date of this Report: July 24, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action
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
Special
Education
Criteria
Originally
Cited in CPR
Report and
Monitored in
Mid-cycle
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 3 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action
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
The district submitted its
policies regarding required and
optional assessments and the
selection of assessment tools.
The district also submitted a list
of the assessments available to
evaluators. The district is
consistently performing
Educational Assessments for
students at all levels. The
district is thoroughly completing
all required assessments and
optional assessments at the
preschool level and for related
services.
Partial
Review of student records
demonstrated that initial
assessments at the
elementary and high
school levels, and
particularly the middle
school level, are not
consistently tailored to
address students’ specific
areas of education need.
Evaluators tend to use the
same type of assessments,
even when a student’s
suspected area of
disability may call for
additional assessments.
Initial evaluations do not
always address the full
spectrum of a student’s
presenting issues.
Submit the revised process for
the selection of assessments for
initial evaluations. Provide
evidence of the dissemination
of the above procedures to
Team chairpersons and
evaluators system-wide.

SE 1/SE 2
Assessments
Partial
Interviews
Student
Records
Documents
SE 9/9A
Eligibility

Interviews
The district regularly adheres to
the mandated 45-day timeline
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 4 of 25
Submit six Psychological
Assessment reports (2 each)
from the elementary, middle,
and high school, completed
this school year and a copy of
Educational Assessments for
each.
Above due by December 18,
2006.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Determination
Documents
Student
records
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content

SE 15
Outreach by the
School District

Interviews
Student
records
Interviews
Documents
Corrective
Action
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
for conducting evaluations,
convening IEP Team meetings,
and the provision of the
proposed IEP and placement.
The district consistently sends
progress reports to parents
consistent with the report card
cycle. Progress reports reflect
student progress toward the IEP
goals and indicate whether the
progress is sufficient to enable
the student to achieve the goals
by the end of the year. IEP
team chairpersons review
progress reports to ensure that
they are timely and addressing
all goals.
The district employs various
outreach efforts and child find
activities, including placing
city-wide newspaper,
newsletter, and television
announcements to identify
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 5 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action
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
Partial
IEP goals and benchmarks
are not consistently
measurable and are not
always specific to the
student’s disability.
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
students in need of special
education. The district has
made contact with various local
pre-schools, private and
parochial schools, and homeless
shelters.
SE 17
Initiation of
Services at Age
Three

Student
records
Interviews
Documents
SE 18A
IEP
development
and content
Partial
Student
records
Interviews
Student records and
documentation indicated that the
district is consistently providing
special education services by
the child’s third birthday, and in
some cases earlier. The district
indicated that it also holds
transition planning meetings.
The district completes all
elements of the IEP.
Additionally, the district
complies with most mandates
regarding development of the
IEP.
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 6 of 25
Submit agendas and signed
attendance sheets from staff
training regarding the
development of measurable
IEP goals. Submit the goals
from 9 IEPs (3 each) from the
elementary, middle, and high
school, by December 18,
2006.
Submit agendas and signed
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 19
Extended
Evaluation
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective

Partial
Method(s)
of
Verification
Student
records
Documents
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
IEP Teams utilize extended
evaluations for periods not
exceeding 8 weeks and obtain
parental consent before doing
so.
Interviews
SE 28
Parent Provided
IEP or Notice
of No
Eligibility with
Procedural
Safeguards and
Parent’s Rights

SE 29/MOA 7
Communications are in
English and
Primary
Language of the
Home

Documents
Student
records
Interviews
Documents
Interviews
Corrective
Action
Implemented
or Not
Effective Or
New Issues
Identified

Partial
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
Based on interviews and
student records, at times,
IEP Teams utilize
extended evaluations
inappropriately to allow
additional time to
complete required
assessments or for trial
placements.
attendance sheets from staff
training regarding the
appropriate use of extended
evaluations.
Submit 2 completed Extended
Evaluation forms from across
the district completed after the
training.
Above due by December 18,
2006.
The district provides the
proposed IEP and placement, or
the finding of no eligibility,
within the required timelines.
The district appropriately
provides parents/guardians with
the Notice of Procedural
Safeguards.
When appropriate, the district
provides translated documents,
including IEPs, notices, and the
Notice of Procedural Safeguards
for parents/guardians whose
primary language is other than
English. The district also
provides parents with a
“Translation Glossary” for
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 7 of 25
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action
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
commonly used special
education terminology.
SE 34/MOA 5
Continuum of
Alternative
Services and
Programs

SE 36
IEP
Implementation

Documents
Interviews
Student
Records
Documents
Interviews
The district provides a range of
services and placements for
special education students,
including inclusion and
substantially separate settings.
The district also has a number
of occupational/ vocational
programs and services for
students.
The district ensures that IEPs
are implemented immediately
upon parent consent. The
district submitted a procedure
for oversight and monitoring
student IEPs at each level. The
district provided a list of
personnel responsible for
oversight and monitoring of
IEPs at the Early Childhood
Center and the Primary School .
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 8 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

SE 49
Related
Services
Partial
Documents
Student
Records
Interviews
SE 50
Responsibilities
of the
Administrator
of Special
Education
Partial
Interviews
Student
Records
Documents
The district provides related
services, including adaptive
physical education, vision,
speech, occupational and
physical therapy, for special
education students when
appropriate.
The district has an appointed
Special Education Director who
oversees the provision of special
education services to students.
The district has an Early
Intervening Team (EIT) at each
level that suggests
accommodations to the
Corrective
Action
Implemented
or Not
Effective Or
New Issues
Identified

Partial
Partial
Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Interviews indicated that
staff and team
chairpersons are unclear
about the roles of the
district’s school
psychologist and behavior
specialist. In particular,
team chairpersons were
not consistently informed
of available in-district
resources for direct
counseling. Additionally,
it was not clear whether
school adjustment
counselors were available
for direct counseling for
students.
Student records for initial
eligibility determinations
revealed that the district
does not consistently
document efforts of the
EIT. Although the district
submitted several forms
relative to the EIT
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 9 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Submit a list of individuals in
the district, along with their
respective roles, who are
available to provide therapeutic
counseling to students.
Provide evidence of the
dissemination of the above list
to Team chairpersons systemwide.
Above due by December 18,
2006.
Submit the revised EIT
procedure and forms for the
elementary and middle school
level. Provide evidence of the
dissemination of the above
procedure to Team
chairpersons and principals
system-wide. Submit a sample
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

curriculum, teaching
environment, and materials and
when appropriate, makes
referrals to the special education
department. EITs meet at
varying intervals, depending on
the school. Documentation and
interviews indicated that the
EIT process at the high school is
clear and well-documented.
The district submitted weekly
meeting notes for the EIT at the
high school. The district has a
Curriculum Accommodation
Plan in place.
SE 53
Use of Paraprofessionals

Documents
Interviews
Corrective
Action
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
process, these forms were
rarely completed and
efforts of the EIT were
not consistently
documented in students’
special education records,
especially at the
elementary and middle
school levels.
form for staff to use when
documenting EIT efforts and
interventions.
It was unclear which
forms were to be used,
when, and at what level.
Additionally, interviews
indicated that staff,
especially at the
elementary level, are
confused about the EIT
process.
The district appropriately trains
paraprofessionals and provides
them with a range of
professional development
opportunities, including access
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 10 of 25
Above due by December 18,
2006.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action
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
to on-line courses.
Paraprofessionals perform
appropriate duties and are
supervised by regular or special
education teachers.
SE 54
Professional
Development
Regarding
Special
Education

Documents
Interviews
The district provides a wide
variety of professional
development to regular, special
education and paraprofessional
staff on all required topics, as
well as additional topics, such
as assistive technology,
differentiated instruction, and
curriculum development.
Training is also provided to
transportation providers in a
number of areas, including
special education students’
needs.
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 11 of 25
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
Interviews
Documentation and student
records provided by the district
indicated that the district is
incorporating transition goals
and services into IEPs
beginning at age 15 and in some
cases earlier. The district has a
vocational coordinator and
makes available various
pathways and seminars to highschool students. The district
makes Chapter 688 referrals
where appropriate, and IEP
Teams are utilizing the
Transition Planning Chart. The
district provides on-site and offsite internship opportunities for
special education students,
based upon the student’s needs
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6
Determination
of Transition
Services

Documents
Student
records
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 12 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
and interests.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action
Implemented
or Not
Effective Or
New Issues
Identified

IEP Team meetings at all levels
consistently include a
representative of the district
present to commit the district’s
resources. At the high school,
representatives from outside
agencies regularly participate in
Team meetings when
appropriate.
Partial

SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
Partial
Student
records
SE 12
Frequency of
Re-evaluation

Student
records
Interviews
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content

Interviews
Student
records
Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Regular education
teachers do not always
attend annual team
meetings at the
elementary, middle, and
high school levels.
Interviews and student records
indicated that the district
regularly adheres to the threeyear timeline for re-evaluation
and conducts re-evaluation
procedures before determining
that a student is no longer
eligible for special education.
The district consistently sends
progress reports to parents with
the report card cycle. Progress
reports reflect student’s progress
toward the IEP goals and
whether the progress is
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 13 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Submit a plan to ensure regular
education teacher participate in
Team meetings for the
discussion of the student’s
participation in the general
curriculum and necessary
accommodations. Submit 10
signed meeting attendance
sheets from across all levels
completed this school year, by
December 18, 2006.
sufficient to enable the student
to achieve the goals by the end
of the year. IEP team
chairpersons review progress
reports to ensure that they are
timely and address all goals.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
SE 14
Review and
revision of IEPs

Student
records
IEP Teams consistently review
IEPs at least annually. Student
records indicated that the
district is making appropriate
use of amendments to IEPs in
between annual IEP meetings.
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

Documents
Documentation submitted by the
district indicates that the district
has not yet needed to convene a
resolution session.
SE 30
Notice of
procedural
safeguards


Interviews
Documents
Corrective
Action
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
The district’s Notice of
Procedural Safeguards contains
all required elements and is
provided to parents at a
minimum of once a year, as well
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 14 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
as upon initial referral and
subsequent to a finding of no
eligibility and upon parental
request.
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Partial
Documents
Student
Records
Interviews
The district routinely performs
manifestation determinations for
students as they are approaching
their 10th day of suspension, and
often as early as their 7th day of
suspension.
The district submitted the
student handbooks for the
Balmer School, Primary School,
middle school, and High
School. The district also
submitted separate discipline
procedures for the Primary
School, High School, and
middle school.
(See MOA-10A)
Partial
The middle school
suspension policy
incorrectly describes the
process for disciplining
special needs/504
students, specifically with
respect to the
manifestation
determination process,
and does not match the
policy in the middle
school handbook. The
discipline policy in the
middle school handbook
does not fully describe the
discipline process for
special needs/504
students. Although the
district submitted the
Primary School’s
procedure for suspensions
for more than 10 days, the
primary school handbook
contains no provisions for
discipline of special
needs/504 students. The
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 15 of 25
Update the suspension
procedure for the middle,
primary, and high schools.
Submit the updated procedures
to be added to the handbooks
by December 18, 2006.
discipline policy in the
High School handbook
does not fully describe the
discipline process for
special needs/504
students. (See MOA 10A)
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
MOA 1
Identification of
LEP Students
MOA 2
Program
Modifications
and Support
Services for
LEP Students
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective


Method(s)
of
Verification
Student
Records
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
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
See ELE 1 & 3.
Documents
Interviews
Partial
Student
Records
See ELE 5.
Partial
Documents
Interviews
The Behavior Uniform
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 16 of 25
Required Corrective
Action, Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Requirements
MOA 10A
Notification of
School District
Staff and the
General Public
Partial
Documents
The district submitted
handbooks containing a student
code of conduct for each school,
including translated handbooks.
Partial
Management Policy does not
include guidelines for special
needs students, and the
derogatory/inflammatory
remarks section does not
include color or religion.
Primary School handbook:
 The student code of conduct
does not contain due process
procedures or procedures for
the discipline of students with
special needs and 504 plans.
MOA 10-A
 The nondiscrimination
statement does not include
color, sex, or religion, nor
does the handbook contain a
harassment policy or grievance
procedure.
 The Special Education section
does not include information
for a parent on how to refer a
student for an evaluation.
Balmer School handbook:
 The policy on harassment does
not adequately describe the
procedure for accepting,
investigating and resolving
complaints, and it does not
describe disciplinary measures
regarding harassment or
discrimination.
 The Chapter 766 description is
inappropriate in that it
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 17 of 25
Submit the updated
2006-2007 handbooks
for the Primary, Balmer,
middle and high schools
by December 18, 2006.
describes a special needs
student as one who is unable
to progress in a regular
classroom situation.
 The student code of conduct
does not contain due process
procedures or procedures for
the discipline of students with
special needs and 504 plans.
 The handbook incorrectly
states that discipline
protections only apply to
special education students with
current, approved IEPs, and
does not mention students who
are not yet eligible.
 The handbook does not
prohibit harassment on the
bases of color and religion.
MOA 10-A
Middle School Handbook:
 The handbook does not
contain a harassment policy.
 The nondiscrimination
statement does not include
religion.
 The “special needs
disciplinary guidelines”
section does not need the
provision about notifying the
DOE for requesting approval
of the alternative plan.
High School Handbook:
 The discipline policy does not
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 18 of 25
fully describe the discipline
process for special needs/504
students; it does not include
guidelines regarding providing
services if suspended, does not
include the manifestation
determination, and refers to
the old regulations.
 The Age of Majority provision
is incorrect and impermissible.
The student gains authority at
age 18 unless the student
designates shared or parental
authority.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

MOA 17A
Use of Physical
Restraint

Documents
Interviews
Corrective
Action
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
The district provides training to
staff annually regarding the
administration of physical
restraint. The district submitted
its Physical Restraint policy,
which complies with all
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 19 of 25
Required Corrective
Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
applicable laws and regulations.
Staff are aware of which
building-based staff members
are trained to administer
physical restraints.
MOA 22/SE 55
Accessibility of
district
programs and
services for
students with
disabilities
Partial
Interviews
Site Visit
As of September 2006, the
district will have at least one
building at each level that is
accessible to students with
disabilities.
Partial
Currently, the entrance to and
egress from the Primary School
playground is not accessible to
students with limited mobility.
However, the district indicated
that as of September 2006, the
district will have two
elementary schools, one of
which will be entirely accessible
to such students.
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 20 of 25
Submit evidence that the
access issue at the
Primary School has been
addressed, by December
18, 2006.
Northbridge 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
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
The district annually assesses the English proficiency for all
LEP students. The district ensures that qualified staff
administers MEPA for students in grades 3-12 and MELA-O
to students in grades K-12.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
Based on a review of student records, all identified LEP
students are participating in MCAS. However, in its
documentation, the district did not indicate whether word-toword bilingual dictionaries or electronic translators are
available to students during MCAS tests.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
The district administers a home language survey to all newly
enrolled students. For students whose first language is not
English, the district assesses such students’ English
proficiency in reading, writing, speaking and listening with a
number of screening instruments, including the IDEA
Proficiency test and the Language Assessment Scales.
ELE 4
The district has a Program Waiver Application form for
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
Submit a list of accommodations available to LEP students during MCAS testing
by December 18, 2006.
Submit a waiver application form for students under the age of 10 that includes a
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 21 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Waiver
Procedures
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
students age 10 and older; however, there is no waiver form
for students under the age of 10.
place for the superintendent and principal to sign, by December 18, 2006.
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
Not all students are placed in sheltered English immersion
classrooms (“SEI”), as not all teachers of LEP students have
received the required amount of SEI training. Several special
education LEP students are placed in classrooms with teachers
who have had no SEI training whatsoever. Additionally, not
all students are receiving English language development
instruction. All LEP students are required to receive such
instruction, regardless of their level of English proficiency.
The ELL tutor does not have certification or a waiver to teach
ELL students.
Submit the following documentation by December 18, 2006:
 List of ELL students for the 06-07 SY. Indicate the grade level and the
classroom placement of each student, and the type and amount of English
language support that the student needs.
 Qualifications of the ELL tutor/teacher(s), including copy of current
certification and/or waiver.
 Copies of schedules for all ELL students for the 06-07 school year, showing
time for English language development instruction.
 Names of teachers participating in SEI training for the 06-07 school year.
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
The district has not yet designated any students as Formerly
Limited English Proficient (“FLEP”). The district indicated
that it intends to monitor FLEP students for a period of two
years. However, review of student records indicated that the
district is contemplating designating several students as FLEP
who have not performed at the “proficient” level on the
MCAS. In order for a student to be designated as FLEP, the
student must be able to participate meaningfully in the general
education program without adapted or simplified English
materials, and must perform at “proficient” level on statemandated assessments.
Submit the following documentation by December 18, 2006 :
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
The district provides opportunities for parent-teacher
communication, and plans to develop an ELL Parent Advisory
Council.
Written procedures for re-designating a student from LEP to FLEP, including the
program exit criteria and the multiple measures used to make the determination.
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 22 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
No students have declined entry to an ELL program. The
district informs parents of their right to “opt-out” of ELL
services.
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
See ELE 5.
See ELE 5.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The district’s parental notification letter includes all required
elements. However, it incorrectly informs parents that the
student will be placed in an SEI classroom and will be
receiving English language development when that is not the
case.
See ELE 5.
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
The district generally provides LEP students with access to
academic programs and services. However, the district does
not provide all students with English language development
instruction. See ELE 5.
See ELE 5.
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic and
Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
The district provides LEP students with access to
nonacademic programs and extracurricular activities available
to non-LEP students.
See ELE 6.
See ELE 6.
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 23 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Follow-up
Support
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Refer to finding under ELE 5 regarding the current ELL
tutor’s qualifications.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
Refer to corrective action and progress reporting under ELE 5 regarding
tutor/teacher’s licensure and waiver for the 06-07 SY.
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 24 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
ELE 16
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
See ELE 5. Although the district has provided staff with
professional development in some SEI areas, not all teachers
of LEP students have received the required training. The
district is in the process of providing teachers with the
required training. For more information on the four training
categories, visit http://www.doe.mass.edu/el/sei/attach1.html.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
See ELE 5.
(To be reviewed during next CPR visit)
Equitable
Facilities –
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
The district reports all of the required information to the
Department annually. The district conducts periodic
evaluations of the ELE program and has identified program
goals and timeframes for completion.
ELE 18
Records of LEP
Students-
Review of LEP students’ records indicated that they contained
all required documentation.
(To be reviewed during next CPR visit.)
Mid-cycle Report Format 2006.doc
Rev. 3/31/06
Northbridge Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 24, 2006
Page 25 of 25