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 20, 2006
Dr. Gerald L. Paist
Pathfinder Regional Vocational Technical High School
240 Sykes Street
Palmer, MA 01069
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Dr. Paist:
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 by the Department to address
findings of noncompliance included in the Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review
Report issued on September 30, 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 selfassessment, 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 DowlingGrant 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/.
While the Department of Education found your district to have resolved certain noncompliance
issues, others were partially corrected or not addressed at all, or the Department’s onsite team
identified new issues of noncompliance, either noncompliance with special education criteria
added or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004, noncompliance with ELE criteria, or
other new noncompliance. Where the district has failed to implement its approved Corrective
Action Plan, the Department views these findings to be serious.
1
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed corrective
action for the district that must be implemented without delay. You will find these requirements
for corrective action included in the attached report, along with requirements for progress
reporting. Please provide the Department with your written assurance that all of the Department's
requirements for corrective action will be implemented by your school district within the
timelines specified. Your statement of assurance must be submitted to the Mid-cycle Review
Chairperson by August 4, 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 413-858-4591.
Sincerely,
Joseph Dow, Supervisor
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Michael Cavanaugh, School Committee Chairperson
JoAnn Fitzpatrick, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Pathfinder Regional Vocational Technical High School
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): September 30, 2003
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: June 1, 2004
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: March 13, 2006
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: May 15, 16, 2006
Date of this Report: July 20, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 1 of 17
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
Special
Education
Criteria
Originally
Cited in CPR
Report and
Monitored in
Mid-cycle
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 2 of 17
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
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

SE 9

SE 15

Student
Records
Interviews
SE 18A

Student
Records
Interviews
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 Department was unable
to consistently determine
that this criteria was met due
to several unsigned
evaluation consent forms in
the student records.
Additionally, when the
district determined that a
student’s lack of progress
was due to limited English
proficiency, the student was
not always referred to a
more appropriate program.
By December 30, 2006, the
district must submit its tracking
forms demonstrating that all
evaluations completed from
September 1, 2006 to December 1,
2006 (initial, unscheduled, or
three-year reevaluations) were
completed within required
timelines, and the district must
also submit copies of all of its
evaluation consent forms signed
between September 1, 2006 and
December 1, 2006.
The district has annual or more
frequent outreach and continuous
liaison with those groups from
which promotion or transfer of
students in need of special
education may be expected.
Student record review and
interviews indicate that the district
is documenting the IEP Team’s
discussion of parent and student
wishes, evaluation results and
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 3 of 17
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
Not Fully
Implemented
Related to the finding in SE
9, the district does not
consistently provide the
parent with the fully
developed IEP and
placement immediately
following their development,
and within forty-five school
working days after receipt of
the parent's written consent
to evaluate.
The district will draft and
distribute a memo to special
education staff, including Team
Chairs, regarding the requirement
of the district to provide the parent
with the fully developed IEP and
placement immediately following
their development, and within
forty-five school working days
after receipt of the parent's written
consent to evaluate. A copy of the
memo will be provided to the
Department by December 30,
2006.
needed specially designed
instruction on the current
Massachusetts DOE IEP format.
SE 18B
The district will randomly select
five (5) IEP’s and submit
documentation that the IEP’s were
provided to the parent within
forty-five school working days
after receipt of the parent’s written
consent to evaluate to the
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 4 of 17
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
Department by December 30,
2006.
SE 22

Interview
Interviews indicate that IEP
services are available immediately
upon receipt of signed parental
consent for the IEP.

SE 25
Parental
Consent
The concern at the time of
the Coordinated Program
Review was that interviews
indicated that special
education services were
sometimes provided to
students before the district
received parental signature
on the student’s IEP.
In May 2006, interviews and
record reviews continue to
indicate that staff members
do not understand that the
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 5 of 17
By December 30, 2006, the
district must send a memo to all
special education staff and provide
a copy to the Department
indicating that no special
education services may be
delivered prior to obtaining
parental consent.
Additionally, by December 30,
2006, the district must submit
copies of all signature and
placement pages from all IEPs
issued between September 1, 2006
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 27
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

Substantially
Implemented
Student
records
Not Fully
Implemented

Student
Records
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
district must receive parental
consent before implementing
special education services
for students.
and December 1, 2006.
As noted in SE 9 and SE
18B, the district does not
provide the parent with two
copies of the fully developed
IEP immediately following
its development and without
undue delay.
As noted in SE 9 and SE 18B, the
district will draft and distribute a
memo to special education staff,
including Team Chairs, regarding
the requirement of the district to
provide the parent with the fully
developed IEP immediately
following its development and
without undue delay. A copy of
the memo will be provided to the
Department by December 30,
2006.
The district ensures that parent
notices meet all state and federal
law content requirements and Team
meeting notices state the meeting's
purpose, time, location, and
attendees.
SE 28
SE 40
Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to
have been
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

The district ensures that all
required elements under this
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 6 of 17
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
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
SE41

SE 54

It was the concern of the
onsite team at the time of the
Coordinated Program
Review that some students
in the MVIP program
exceeded age span
requirements.
Documentation furnished
subsequent to the progress
report review and during the
Mid-Cycle review continues
to indicate non-compliance
with this issue. Although
the district has received a
waiver in the past for this
issue, the district is reminded
that waivers cannot be
issued on a yearly basis for
this concern.
The district has not provided
all staff with training in all
of the required topics as
outlined in this criterion with
(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

Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
criterion are implemented.
Staff
Interviews
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 7 of 17
The district must indicate to the
Department how it will redesign
its MVIP program so that these
age span violations will not
continue to occur on a yearly
basis. This report must be
submitted to the Department by
December 30, 2006.
The district must provide all staff
with training in all of the required
topics and submit to the
Department its agendas, sign-in
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
the exception of trainings
with the Parent Advisory
Council.
SE 56

Documents
The district ensures that special
education programs, services and
administrative areas are regularly
evaluated.
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 8 of 17
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
sheets, and list of presenters by
December 30, 2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented


SE 6
Determination
of Transition
Services
Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
There was no indication that
transition planning was
discussed or initiated for
special education students
not in the MVIP program.
The district must ensure that the
Teams discuss students’ transition
needs annually beginning no later
than when the student is 15 years
old. Unless the documentation of
this discussion indicates that no
transition-related IEP goals and
services are necessary, beginning
no later than the IEP in effect
when the student turns 16 years
old the student’s IEP must include
measurable goals based on ageappropriate transition assessments
related to postsecondary training
and employment, and, where
appropriate, to independent living
skills; and the transition services,
including course of study, needed
to reach those goals. The district
must ensure that students are
invited to and encouraged to
attend part or all of Team
meetings at which transition
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 9 of 17
services are discussed or
proposed.
By December 30, 2006 the
district must submit evidence of
five different students’ transition
planning activities and any
transition-related IEP goals. One
acceptable method for
documenting the transition
planning discussion is the use of
the Department’s Transition
Planning Chart, which can be
found at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/ID
EA2004/spr_meetings/iep_transiti
on.doc.
By December 30, 2006 the
district must also submit evidence
of how the district invited and
encouraged students to attend part
or all of the Team meetings at
which such transition services
were discussed or proposed.
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance

SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

SE 13

Student
Records
Staff
Interviews
Student
Interviews and
documentation indicated that
at least one teacher or
specialist trained in the area
of the student’s suspected
special needs was not always
present at Team meetings.
The district ensures that a reevaluation is conducted, with
parental consent, every three years
consistent with the requirements of
federal law or unless otherwise
agreed to by the parent and district.
The district ensures that progress
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 10 of 17
The district must submit copies of
IEP attendance sheets of ten
different students indicating that
this concern is resolved by
December 30, 2006.
Progress
Reports and
content
Records
Staff
Interviews
reports are completed at least as
often as parents are informed of the
progress of non-disabled students
and address the progress toward the
goal and whether the progress is
sufficient to meet the goal by the
end of the IEP period.
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 11 of 17
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Student
Records
The district ensures that IEPs are
reviewed on or before the
anniversary date of their
implementation date to consider the
student’s progress and develop a
new IEP.
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)

SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
Staff
Interviews
SE 25B
Resolution of
Disputes

SE 30
Notice of
procedural
safeguards

Documents
The district is using the
Massachusetts Interim Notice of
Procedural Safeguards and
provides it to parents as required.
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days

Student
Records
The district ensures students with
disabilities, who are suspended 10
consecutive days or 10 cumulative
days that constitute a pattern, are
provided all required procedural
safeguards including a Team
meeting to conduct a manifestation
determination and provides a
Documents
Staff
Interviews
Staff
Interviews
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
The district ensures that required
resolution dispute procedures are
followed including convening a
meeting to attempt resolution and
completing a legally binding
agreement if the resolution session
is successful or seeking mediation
when agreed to by the parent and
district.
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 12 of 17
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
functional behavioral assessment,
and behavior intervention plan if
the behavior is determined to be a
manifestation of the student’s
disability.
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 13 of 17
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
MOA 14
MOA 21
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective



Partially
Method(s)
of
Verification
Student
Records
Staff
Interviews
Documentatio
n
Interviews
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
Not all staff has received the
required training in all
elements of this criterion.
The district must provide training
on the required elements of this
criterion and submit a copy of the
dated agenda, materials presented
and completed sign-in sheets by
December 30, 2006.
The district ensures that all
required elements under this
criterion are implemented.
Documentation and interviews
indicated that some staff have
received training regarding civil
rights responsibilities, prevention
of discrimination and harassment
and the appropriate methods for
responding to it in the school
setting.

Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 14 of 17
Pathfinder Regional Vocational Technical High School
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
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The school district has not annually assessed (using approved tests
and administered by qualified staff) the English proficiency of all
limited English proficient (LEP) students.
The district must develop procedures to ensure annual assessments and the training of
personnel to ensure the appropriate administration of required annual assessments.
Provide evidence that LEP students participate in annual assessments by July 30, 2007.
The school district did not submit any evidence that limited English
proficient students, who are required to, participate in the annual
administration of the MCAS exam.
The district must develop policies and procedures for limited English proficient students’
MCAS participation. Submit the policies and procedures by December 30, 2006.
The school district has procedures to seek and identify limited
English proficient students. The school district has a Home
Language Survey, but it has not been sent to all families
The school district must distribute the home language survey to all families within the
school and assess students whose home language survey indicates a first language not
English, by trained professional staff for English proficiency in reading, writing, speaking
and listening. Submit evidence of trained staff and the appropriate assessment tools used
for identification by December 30, 2006. For guidance on this topic see
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/identify_lep.html.
The school district does not have waiver policies and forms in place,
consistent with M.G.L. Chapter 71A.
The district must develop policies and procedures for the parent’s right to waive ELE
services. The district must also develop the waiver forms. Submit policies and
procedures, along with waiver forms, by December 30, 2006.
ELE 5
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 15 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Program
Placement and
Structure
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The school district does not have a program in place to serve limited
English proficient students at this time.
Subsequent to determining the amount of limited English proficient students, the district
must develop a program and placement structure for LEP students and submit the
program’s description to the Department by December 30, 2006.
The school district does not have program exit criteria, procedures,
and appropriate forms to document the student’s progress and the
decision to exit the student from the program.
The school district must develop policies and procedures and forms to use for limited
English proficient students’ program exit. Submit policies, procedures and forms by
December 30, 2006.
The school district has not developed a mechanism to engage the
parents of LEP students in matters pertaining to their children’s
education.
The district must develop policies and procedures for involvement of parents of limited
English proficient students. Submit policies and procedures to the Department by
December 30, 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. Submit policies and procedures to
the Department by December 30, 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. Submit policies and procedures to the Department by December 30, 2006.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The district does not have policies, procedures, or supporting
documentation regarding the required elements of parent notices.
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. Submit policies and procedures and a sample notice form to the Department by
December 30, 2006.
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 equal access to academic
programs and services for LEP students. Submit the district’s policies and procedures by
December 30, 2006.
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. Submit the district’s policies and
procedures by December 30, 2006.
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 16 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
and Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The district did not describe how students are monitored for the two
years after exiting the ELE program and what type of language
support services are provided.
Submit a description of the policy and procedures for monitoring students for two years
after exiting the ELE program, and the type of language support services, and include all
forms developed in support of this standard by December 30, 2006.
Once the district has determined through the use of its home
language survey and screening instruments the numbers of LEP
students, the district must have an ESL certified teacher in place, as
well as teachers at each grade level, as appropriate, who are trained
in Sheltered English Immersion.
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 by December
30, 2006.
Teachers who instruct in SEI classrooms must have a content license and ESL/ELL
license; or have a content license and co-teach with another teacher who holds an
ESL/ELL license; or have a content license and have obtained intense and sustained
professional development in
(1) second language learning and teaching;
(2) sheltering content instruction;
(3) assessment of speaking and listening; and
(4) teaching reading and writing to limited English proficient students. (See
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news04/0615qualifications.pdf)
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 17 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities (To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit)
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
ELE 18 Records
of LEP
Students(To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
The district must have ongoing professional development regarding
the provision of high quality instruction for LEP students.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
Submit a professional development plan for providing teachers with ongoing training
regarding the instruction of LEP students by December 30, 2006.
To be reviewed during the next CPR visit.
The district did not provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of
the ELE program in meeting the goals of the program.
Submit the district’s plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the ELE program in all
programmatic areas, including steps to make appropriate program adjustments or changes
that are responsive to the outcomes of the program evaluation by December 30, 2006.
To be reviewed during the next CPR visit.
Pathfinder RVTS Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 20, 2006
Page 18 of 17