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 25, 2007
Dr. Gerald Fournier, Superintendent
Converse Middle School
24 Converse Street
Palmer, MA 01069-1770
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Dr. Fournier:
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 Palmer School District Coordinated Program
Review Report issued on September 24, 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.
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed corrective
1
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 August 3, 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 413-858-4591.
Sincerely,
Nicole E. Heroux, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Mary A. Salzmann, Chairperson of School Committee
Neil Metcalf, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Mid-cycle Cover Letter 2007.doc
Rev. 11/14/06
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Palmer Public Schools
ONSITE MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND OF CERTAIN NEW REQUIREMENTS
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): September 24, 2004
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: March 30, 2005
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: 6/05, 1/06, 6/06, 12/06
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: April 23, 26, 27, 2007
Date of this Report: July 25, 2007
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 1 of 22
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
Special Ed.
Criteria Cited
in CPR Report
and Monitored
in Mid-cycle
MOA 4
Disproportionality
(if Cited in the
CPR Report)
SE1

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district has provided
evidence of communications
and the professional
development plan for regular
and special education
teachers, along with names
of service providers on this
topic.
SE2

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided a
sample of educational
assessments conducted by
the classroom teacher and
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 2 of 22
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

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
samples of educational
assessments and observations
of interactions in the
student’s natural
environment or early
intervention program.
SE3
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.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 3 of 22
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

Corrective
Action Not
Implemented or
Not Effective or
New Issues
Identified

SE4

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted
information on what type of
assessments were provided
for these students, along with
the dates that these
assessments were
administered to the selected
students.
SE8

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted the
names and titles of the
personnel in the district that
are able to commit district
resources at Team meetings.
The district also submitted
signed attendance sheets
from Team meetings to
demonstrate that required
persons are in attendance at
the Team meetings.
SE9

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted
tracking forms and/or copies
of parent consent forms and
dated IEPs to demonstrate
compliance with this
criterion.
Basis of
Determination that
Implementation of
Corrective Action
was Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of
New Noncompliance
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 4 of 22
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

Corrective
Action Not
Implemented or
Not Effective or
New Issues
Identified

SE15

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted copies
of its fliers and
announcements informing
the community of its
outreach. The district also
provided copies of its
distribution list and schedule
of when it conducts outreach
within the community.
SE17

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided
evidence of communications
that it has had with local area
providers to encourage
referrals of students for Early
Childhood services at the age
of 2 and 2 1/2.
SE18A

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted signed
attendance sheets from Team
meetings to demonstrate that
required persons are in
attendance at the Team
meetings.
Basis of
Determination that
Implementation of
Corrective Action
was Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of
New Noncompliance
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 5 of 22
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

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
The district submitted copies
of the letters that it has sent
to the independent
contractors informing them
of the eight -week timeline
limitation, which was the
issue previously identified as
creating the timeline delay.
SE19

SE20

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided
documentation to establish
that there are child study
teams in every school in the
district with a formalized
process for assessing
situations within the general
education classroom.
SE22

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted copies
of student summary sheets
that have been provided to all
the students’ teachers
informing them of their
specific responsibility as it
relates to the implementation
of the students’ IEPs.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 6 of 22
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

Corrective
Action Not
Implemented or
Not Effective or
New Issues
Identified

SE23

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district currently uses E
SPED for student records,
along with student records in
which anyone looking for
access must sign a log of
access.
SE24

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted signed
consent (N1A) forms, along
with the N3 and N3a forms,
demonstrating that the
referrals made directly to the
Special Education office are
being processed, and the
evaluation procedures are
being initiated within the
required timelines.
SE26

Student record
review and
documentation
The district submitted
notification that is sent to the
parents regarding parent
participation in Team
meetings.
SE28

Student record
review,
The district submitted signed
N3A forms, along with the
Basis of
Determination that
Implementation of
Corrective Action
was Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of
New Noncompliance
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 7 of 22
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

Corrective
Action Not
Implemented or
Not Effective or
New Issues
Identified

documentation
and interviews
dates that the parents of these
students were provided the
IEPs. The district also
provided copies of N1forms
and copies of N2 forms for
students that were
determined not to be or no
longer eligible for special
education services or
programs.
SE29

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted copies
of the notices that it sends
home in English, along with
copies of the same notices
that it sends home in other
languages.
SE30

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district recently
purchased a program that
translates all notices to
parents.
SE34

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided a list
and program descriptions for
its continuum of services
from the least restrictive to
Basis of
Determination that
Implementation of
Corrective Action
was Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of
New Noncompliance
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 8 of 22
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

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
most restrictive educational
setting.
SE36

SE40

SE41

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided a copy
of its written policy and
procedure that it has
developed in order to notify
all service providers and
teachers of the receipt of an
accepted or partially
accepted IEP and to
implement the services
without delay.
Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted class
rosters for all special
education classes with the
names of the students,
teachers, aides, or copies of
requested waivers to
demonstrate compliance with
this criterion.
Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted class
rosters for all its high school
special education classes and
programs with names of the
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 9 of 22
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

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
students and their dates of
birth to demonstrate
compliance with this
criterion.
SE42

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted class
rosters with the names of the
students, teachers, aides, and
the designation of which
students in its kindergarten
classes are on IEPs to
demonstrate compliance with
this criterion.
SE43

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted copies
of its developed Functional
Behavioral Assessment
procedures and practices.
The district also submitted
copies of Functional
Behavioral Assessments.
SE47

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided
evidence that training is
continuing to occur on this
topic and specific evidence
of future trainings, including
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 10 of 22
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

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
topics covered, dates
selected, and attendees.
SE48

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted
evidence that all students
receive an equal opportunity
to participate in the general
education program as well as
the non-academic and extracurricular programs of
school.
SE49

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided copies
of its written policy and
procedure that it has
developed in order to notify
all service providers and
teachers of the receipt of an
accepted or partially
accepted IEP and to
implement the services
without delay.
SE50

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided copies
of its developed procedures
and forms used to document
child study team activities
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 11 of 22
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

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
and the implementation of its
DCAP.
SE51

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided copies
of the certification/licensure
for all its special education
teachers, and all staff are
fully licensed or on an
approved waiver.
SE52

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided copies
of the certifications/licensure
for all its related service
providers.
SE53

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district provided copies
of the receipt signature sheet
for the Special Education
Summary sheets that have
been distributed to
paraprofessional staff that
provide services to special
education students. The
district also provided
evidence of the professional
development trainings that it
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 12 of 22
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

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
has offered to its
paraprofessional staff
members, along with a copy
of the agendas, training
materials used, and signed
attendance sheets.
SE54

Documentation
review and
interviews
The district submitted a copy
of their professional
development plan for both
paraprofessionals and
professional staff.
SE56

Documentation
review and
Interviews
The district provided
documentation of its
developed comprehensive
program for evaluating the
effectiveness of programs in
assisting students with
disabilities to achieve the
goals set forth in their IEPs
in the least restrictive
environment.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 13 of 22
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

Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented
Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented

Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6 #1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services

Student record
review,
documentation
and interviews
The district submitted a record
of transition plans to
demonstrate compliance with
this criterion.
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance

Student record
review and
documentation
The district submitted the
names and titles of the
personnel in the district that are
able to commit district
resources at Team meetings,
along with signed attendance
sheets from Team meetings to
demonstrate that regular
education teachers and other
required persons are in
attendance at the Team
meetings.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 14 of 22
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

Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

Student record
review and
documentation
The district provided records
and copies of the students’
initial IEPs and their IEPs after
being reevaluated.
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content

Student record
review and
documentation
The school district submitted
current copies of all progress
reports.
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs

Student record
review and
documentation
Student records and
documentation provided
indicated that the school
district conducts annual
reviews in a timely manner.
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

Documentation
review
The district submitted evidence
that they contact the BSEA in
order to try to resolve a dispute
regarding IEPs.
SE 33
Involvement in
the General
Curriculum

Student record
review and
documentation
The district submitted the
names and titles of the
personnel in the district that are
able to commit district
resources at Team meetings.
Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 15 of 22
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

Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
The district also submitted
signed attendance sheets from
Team meetings to demonstrate
that required persons are in
attendance at the Team
meetings.
SE 39A
Procedures for
services to
eligible private
school students
whose parents
reside in the
district

Documentation
Review
The district provided a copy of
its written policy and
procedure that it has developed
to provide services to eligible
students in private schools at a
private expense.

Documentation
Review
The district provided a copy of
its written policy and
procedure that it has developed
to provide services to eligible
students in private schools at a
private expense whose parents
(SE 39A does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
SE 39B
Procedures for
services to
eligible
students in
private schools
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 16 of 22
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

Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
reside out of state.
in the district
whose parents
reside out of
state
(SE 39B does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days

Documentation
Review
The district submitted written
copies of its revised exit
criteria for its alternative
education programs. The
district also provided evidence
that appropriate training has
occurred on this topic.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 17 of 22
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Palmer School District
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
Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented)

ELE 1
Annual
Assessment

ELE 2
MCAS
Participation

ELE 3
Initial
Identification

ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures

Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 18 of 22
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
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 5
Program
Placement
and Structure
Documentation indicates the district’s program placement and
structure do not meet all requirements under this criterion. The
district needs to have additional staff trained in Sheltered English
Immersion.
The district must provide its plan to have all staff
trained in SEI to the Department on or before
September 10, 2007.
ELE 6
Program Exit
and
Readiness
Documentation indicates the district does not have well-established
procedures to appropriately determine an LEP student’s program
readiness and exit level.
The district will develop a program placement and
structure plan for LEP students that meet all
requirements under this criterion. A copy of the
program placement and structure plan will be
provided to the Department on or before
September 10, 2007.
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
Documentation indicates the district does not have well established
mechanisms in place that consistently include parents/guardians of
LEP students in matters pertaining to their children’s education.
The district will develop well-established
mechanisms that consistently include
parents/guardians of LEP students in matters
pertaining to their children’s education. A copy of
this plan will be provided to the Department on or
before September 10, 2007.
ELE 8
Declining
Entry to a
Program
Documentation indicates the district does not have well-established
procedures for parents/guardians of LEP students who choose to
decline entry to a district program. To date only one parent of an LEP
student, designated for an advanced ELL class, declined entry to a
district program.
The district will develop procedures for
parents/guardians of LEP students who choose to
decline entry to a district program. A copy of the
plan will be provided to the Department on or
before September 10, 2007.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 19 of 22
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

ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
Documentation indicates the district’s grouping of students does not
ensure that LEP students receive effective content instruction at
appropriate academic levels and that ESL/ELD instruction is at the
appropriate proficiency level and based on the English Language
Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes.
Documentation indicates the district does not have a parental
notification letter. The notification letter must include the following
elements:
a. reasons for identification of the student as LEP;
b. child’s level of English proficiency;
c. program placement and/or method of instruction used in the
program;
d. parent’s right to apply for a waiver or to decline to enroll their
child in the program.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 20 of 22
The district must provide its plan to ensure that this
criterion is fully implemented by September 10,
2007.
The district will develop a parental notification
letter to the Department on or before September
10, 2007. This notice must be mailed upon
placement of any student in the district’s ELE
program and annually thereafter in both English
and the student’s primary/home language. The
notification letter must incorporate the following
elements:
a. reasons for identification of the student as
LEP;
b. child’s level of English proficiency;
c. program placement and/or method of
instruction used in the program;
d. parent’s right to apply for a waiver or to
decline to enroll their child in the program.
The district will also provide a letter of assurance
that it will provide parents of LEP students with
report cards and progress report in a language
understandable to the parent to the maximum
extent possible. A copy of the memo and letter of
assurance will be provided to the Department on or
before September 10, 2007.
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

ELE 11
Equal Access
to Academic
Programs
and Services
ELE 12
Equal Access
to
Nonacademic
and
Extracurricular
Programs


ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
Documentation indicates the district does not actively monitor
students who have exited an English learner education program for
two years and does not provide language support services to those
students, if needed.
The district must provide its plan to ensure that this
criterion is fully implemented by September 10,
2007.
ELE 14
Licensure
Requirements
Documentation indicates the district does not have a certified ELL
teacher in the school system.
The district must have staff that holds the
appropriate licenses issued by the Department of
Education and provide evidence to the Department
on or before September 10, 2007.
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 21 of 22
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

Documentation indicates the district has not met all required
professional development requirements under this criterion.
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities

ELE 17
Program
Evaluation

The district must provide its plan to have all staff
trained in SEI to the Department on or before
September 10, 2007.
ELE 18
Records of
LEP
Students(To be
reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
Mid-cycle Report Format 2007.doc
Rev. 1/3/07
Palmer Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 25, 2007
Page 22 of 22