The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
December 14, 2005
Lawrence Callahan, Superintendent
Salem Public Schools
29 Highland Avenue
Salem, MA 01970
Re:
’06 Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Dr. Callahan:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's ’06 Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report. This
report contains findings based on onsite monitoring activities conducted to verify the implementation
status and effectiveness of corrective action activities approved by the Department that were intended to
address findings of noncompliance included in the Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review
Report issued on June 3, 2002. (In the remainder of this letter, please read “district” as meaning “school
district or charter school.”)
As you know, one component of the Department’s Mid-cycle Review process is the review of your
district's self-assessment in the area of English learner education (ELE). The purpose of this activity is to
determine if your district is beginning to implement the significant changes in M.G.L. Chapter 71A, this
state’s law governing the education of limited English proficient students that was adopted by voters as
Question 2 in 2002. The Department has reviewed your district’s ELE self-assessment documents and is
providing you now with advisory comments and actions to be implemented in anticipation of your
district’s next scheduled Coordinated Program Review. Where indicated in our report, your district is
urged to request technical assistance in areas that, based solely on your self-assessment documents, were
found not likely to be fully implemented. To secure assistance, you may consult with your Mid-cycle
Review Chairperson or call Robyn Dowling-Grant in Program Quality Assurance Services at 781-3383732. You may also consult with staff in the Department’s Office of Language Acquisition and
Achievement at 781-338-3534 and obtain additional ELE guidance documents through the Department’s
web site at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/ .
The Department will notify you of your district's next regularly scheduled Coordinated Program Review
several months before it is to occur. At this time we anticipate the Department's next routine monitoring
visit to occur sometime during the 2007-2008 school year, unless the Department determines that there is
some reason to schedule this visit earlier.
While the Department of Education found certain noncompliance issues to be resolved, others were
partially corrected, not addressed at all and/or the Department’s onsite team identified new issues of
noncompliance. As the Department previously informed you, in cases where a district fails to fully and
effectively implement a Corrective Action Plan, which was proposed by your district and approved by the
Department, the Department must then prepare a Corrective Action Plan for the district, which must be
implemented without further delay. You will find these requirements for corrective action and further
progress reporting included in the attached report together with any steps that must be taken by the district
to fully implement new special education requirements. Please provide the Department with your written
assurance that 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
Department's Onsite Chairperson by January 6, 2006.
Your staff's cooperation throughout these Follow-up Monitoring activities is appreciated. Should you
require additional clarification of information included in our report, please do not hesitate to contact the
Onsite Team Chairperson at 781-338-3703.
Sincerely,
Dean Paolillo, Coordinated Program Review Follow-up Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
John D. Stager, Administrator
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Dr. James O’Connor, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Salem Public Schools
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): December 10-14, 2001
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: November 25, 2002
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: November 16-17, 2005
Date of this Report: December 14, 2005
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Yes
Documentation
and student
records
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Special Education
Requirements
(including new
IDEA-2004
Requirements
SE 6
Determination of
Transition
Services
The district engaged in a
Special Education
Department meeting to
discuss the new IDEA
requirements and existing
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 1, 2005
Page 1 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Yes
Student records indicate that
Team attendance continues
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
standards regarding the
transition planning activities
for students. The
Department’s “Transition
Planning Chart” was
reviewed with the special
education staff. Transition
components, involving other
human service agencies and
integrating the decisions into
the IEP were also elements of
the staff training. Student
records examined indicated
the district was implementing
transitional activities for older
students. In addition, the
district provided the
Department with recently
completed IEPs that reflect
the results of the district’s
training efforts. The
Department also selected
records independent of the
district’s examples of its
efforts to meet current
regulatory requirements.
SE 8
IEP Team
No
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 2 of 21
The district will notify the
building principals of the
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

composition and
attendance
SE 12
Frequency of reevaluation
SE 13
Progress Reports
and content
Yes
Documentation
and student
records
Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
to be an issue. Team
attendance is not reflective
of the necessary persons
needed to develop the
student’s IEP nor did the
district document the
participation of the other
Team members through
alternative means. In some
cases, regular education
teachers did not participate
in the Team meeting. Team
meetings did not always
have the person designated
with the authority to commit
the resources of the district.
continuing issues regarding
regular education staff attendance
at Team meetings and lack of
attendance by persons designated
with the authority to commit the
resources of the district.
Student IEPs that are
translated paraphrase the
actual text of the English
The district will demonstrate that
progress reports are being
translated. A sample of five
In addition, after notifying
principals, the district will conduct
a sample student record review
and examine recent Team
attendance for each school. The
results of the district’s review will
be reported to the Department as
part of an April 15, 2006 progress
report.
District status reports and the
student records indicate that
the district is re-evaluating
students every three years (or
sooner, if warranted) as
required by regulation.
Yes
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 3 of 21
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
SE 14
Review and
revision of IEPs
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Yes
Method(s) of
Verification
Student Record
Review
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
version rather than provide a
literal and contextual
translation of the actual
English version. In addition,
some translated progress
reports did not reflect the
current IEP goal. Progress
reports from out-of-district
placements to parents with a
home language other than
English were not translated
before providing the
progress reports to the
parent. Progress reports do
not always indicate whether
the student’s progress is
anticipated to meet the
annual goal for which the
progress report was written.
progress reports (both the English
and translated copy) will be
provided to the Department.
Please provide copies of Spanish
translations. The district’s
corrective action is due April 15,
2006.
The district is conducting
annual reviews as evidenced
by the documentation within
the student records. The
Department, however, did
note some concerns (under
SE 8) regarding Team
participation at the annual
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 4 of 21
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
review meetings.
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes
Yes
Interview and
Documentation
The district’s Special
Education Director has
indicated resolution meetings
prior to proceeding to the
BSEA are being conducted.
Furthermore, the district
notifies the BSEA regarding
any rejected IEPs received by
the district.
SE 30
Notice of
procedural
safeguards
Yes
Documentation
The district is using the
interim brochure. A copy
was provided to the
Department for review.
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities more
than 10 days
Yes
Student
Records and
Documentation
The district is conducting
Functional Behavioral
Assessments and developing
manifestation determination
procedures consistent with
federal requirements.
Because of past procedural
violations, the district
initiated corrective action per
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 5 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
order of the Department to
revise its procedures and
provide staff training at the
middle school.
Other Special
Education
Requirements
Originally Cited in
CPR Report
SE 2
Required
Assessments
Yes
Student Record
Review
The student records indicated
that district staff members are
completing required
assessments.
SE 7
Transfer of Rights
at Age of Majority
Yes
Student
Records and
Documentation
The student records contained
notice of the transfer of
rights. The district provided a
copy of its letter as part of the
district’s documentation.
SE 9 Timelines
Yes
Student
Records and
Documentation
The district is date-stamping
documents entered into the
student folders. In addition,
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 6 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
The district’s letter,
however, as noted
previously in the 2001
Coordinated Program
Review does not fully
inform parents of their rights
to an Independent
Educational Evaluation
(IEE).
The district must develop a notice
to parents that apprises the
parent’s of their rights to an IEE
that is consistent with existing
state and federal requirements.
The corrective action is due April
15, 2006.
Nonparticipation
justifications do not
As part of the district’s review of
student records, the district will
for the 2005 school year, the
district implemented “ESped” software to manage
timelines. While there were
some instances of testing
extending past the 30-day
timeline, in general, Team
meetings and testing were
completed within the 45 days.
SE 11
IEEs
Student
Records and
Documentation
Student records and
documentation indicates the
district is conducting IEEs as
noted previously in the
Department’s coordinated
program review of 2001. The
district’s letter to parents now
indicates that a Team meeting
will be held within 10 school
working days.
SE 17
Transition
Services
SE 18A
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 7 of 21
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
IEP Development
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
specifically indicate the
basis for removal from the
general education setting, in
some instances, the basis for
removal was not written on
the IEP despite specifying
services under part “C” of
the service delivery grid.
Nonparticipation
justifications need more
specificity regarding the
individual child’s need for
removal from the general
education setting. In some
instances, nonparticipation
justification statements were
written that suggested the
student was removed solely
because curriculum
modification was necessary.
IEPs for students who are
Limited English Proficient
are not indicating how the
English language needs
impact the provision of
special education services.
Furthermore, in some IEPs
the services and goals
identified do not always
examine the nonparticipation
justification statements; in
addition, the district should review
with the Team chairpersons the
need for clear, specific
nonparticipation statements. The
district will also advise
chairpersons to include discussion
of the student’s LEP status (if
appropriate of course, to the
student) and the impact on the
provision of services when at the
Team meeting. The district
should review N1 notices for the
IEPs examined to ensure the key
questions on the notice are fully
addressed. Lastly, the district will
conduct professional development
that reminds staff that all
identified areas of need must be
addressed in the development of
the IEP. The district’s corrective
action is due April 15, 2006.
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 8 of 21
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
reflect the identified needs
of the student. For example,
in one IEP reviewed, the
Team repeatedly identified
the student as having
emotional needs (both in the
evaluations and in the body
of the IEP itself) in addition
to academic needs, however,
the Team did not develop a
goal or identify services that
were intended to address the
emotional needs of the
student.
A person with the authority
to commit the resources and
the attendance of a regular
education teacher continues
to remain an issue with the
district.
N1 notices do not fully
address the Department’s
key questions that explain to
the parent or guardian the
basis for the district’s
proposed IEP.
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 9 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
SE 19
Extended
Evaluation
Yes
Student
Records
The Department onsite Team
did not find inappropriate
uses of extended evaluations
within the student records
selected for review.
SE 22
Yes
Student
Records
Student record review
indicated the district makes
multiple efforts to ensure
IEPs are signed and provides
services to only those IEPs
consented to by the parent or
guardian.
SE 24
Notice
Yes
Student
Records
Required notices were
contained in the student
records.
SE 25
Parent Consent
Yes
Student
Records
Student records reviewed by
the onsite Team indicated
consent forms were present
and signed by the parent or
guardian.
IEP Implementation
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 10 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Yes
SE 29
Communications
SE 31
Education
Surrogate Parents
(ESPs)
Yes
Interview
The district is aware of the
procedures for contacting the
Education Surrogate Parent
(ESP) program to identify and
assign an ESP when
necessary.
SE 32
PAC
Yes
Interview
The district has experienced
difficulties with the Parent
Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
In most cases, the
Department noted that IEPs
and documents were
translated into the primary
language of the parent and
interpreters were used at
Team meetings when
necessary. In a few
instances, the Department
noted that some
correspondence, including
the IEP itself, was not
translated. The district
needs to improve its
consistency in assuring the
translation of documents.
The district will review with staff
the need to ensure that all
documents are translated when
required. Verification of the
review will be provided to the
Department by April 15, 2006.
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 11 of 21
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Yes
Data gathered from the
district indicates that the
district does not document
its onsite monitoring
activities, instead, relying on
“Team meeting summary
notes” that do not
sufficiently convey the
activities used for
monitoring out-of-district
placements.
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Advisory Council (PAC) and
is currently in the process or
re-constructing the PAC with
appropriate by-laws.
SE 35
Assistive
Technology
Yes
Student records indicate that
assistive technology is
provided to students when
needed.
Student
Records and
Interviews
SE 37
Procedures for
Out-of-District
SE 39
Private School at
Private Expense
Student
Records
Yes
Interview and
Documentation
Students in private schools at
private expense are receiving
IEP services. The district
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 12 of 21
The district will provide five
samples of recently conducted
onsite monitoring activities. The
corrective action is due April 15,
2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Yes
Students in preschool
programs have all services
listed in part “c” of the
service delivery grid. In
some cases, these students
are identified on their
placement page or in the IEP
as having an integrated preschool program, however,
the integrated program is not
reflected when one examines
the service delivery grid of
the student.
The district will provide three
integrated pre-school service
delivery grids that reflect the
actual provision of services in the
correct setting for the students.
The corrective action is due April
15, 2006.
conducts evaluations,
reviews, develops IEPs and
provides services to students
placed in private schools at
private expense.
Interviews and
student records
SE 42
Programs for
Young Children
SE 43
Behavioral
Interventions
Yes
Student
Records and
Documentation
The district provided sample
behavior intervention plans
for students that illustrate the
nature and scope of
behavioral interventions
undertaken by district staff to
modify negative student
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 13 of 21
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
behaviors.
SE 44
Recording
Suspensions
SE 45
Procedures for 10
day suspensions
Yes
Documentation
The district has recently
initiated corrective action in
this regard with all principals
and assistant principals per
order of a DOE corrective
action through the Problem
Resolution System.
Student
Records and
Documentation
The district has developed
clear procedures consistent
with the requirements of
current federal law. The
district’s codes of
conduct/agenda books contain
the disciplinary procedures
for students with disabilities.
All special education staff
members were provided
professional development in
the requirements of this
standard. Student records
reviewed by the Department
were not indicative of any
procedural violations for
students with disabilities.
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 14 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
SE 53
Paraprofessionals
Yes
Documentation
& Interviews
Paraprofessionals have
received and continue to
receive training in providing
special education services.
The district provided
examples of ongoing
professional development
opportunities for
paraprofessionals.
Furthermore, the district has
documented that a majority of
its paraprofessionals are
considered “highly qualified”
under the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB).
SE 54
Professional
Development
Yes
Documentation
& Interviews
The district has conducted
training on the IEP process
and development, transition,
other new IDEA 2004
requirements and procedural
requirements for students
with disabilities facing
disciplinary action.
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 15 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
SE 56
Program
Evaluations
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
to be
Substantially
Implemented
and Effective
Or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

Yes
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding
Implementation of New
IDEA Requirements
Documentation
The district used consultants
to evaluate the special
education program for its
effectiveness. MCAS
achievement, communication
between school personnel,
program models and service
delivery models were also
subject to review and
recommendation. In addition,
parents were surveyed in the
2003-2004 school year to
solicit information regarding
the effectiveness of special
education services within the
district.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 16 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Salem Public Schools
English Learning Education (ELE) Requirements
Mid-Cycle Review Advisory Comments Resulting From The Department’s Review Of Local Self-Assessment Documents
(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
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
The district should ensure that individual scores of the
required testing are also kept in the individual student records.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
Please see ELE 1 above.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
The district has appropriate initial identification procedures.
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
The district had developed appropriate waiver procedures and
a waiver application.
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
The district’s training activities are focused on developing
capacity within regular education. This should continue to be
the district’s focus.
The district must build capacity for a Sheltered English Immersion program
within all schools. The district should continue to expand its training efforts to
classroom teachers at all the elementary schools to ensure “program schools”
exist for all schools within the district. The district will identify the teachers
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 17 of 21
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
trained to provide Sheltered Instruction during the 2005-2006 school year. The
district will indicate its ability to provide Sheltered Instruction at each school
within the district. The progress report is due April 15, 2006.
The district has developed appropriate program exit criteria
and procedures.
The documentation seems to indicate involvement primarily
through Title I and parent/ teacher conferences. The district is
seeking parent input through program evaluations.
The Department suggests that the district makes an active effort to tailor a
program evaluation survey specifically to ELE and if possible, garner
involvement through school site representation (i.e. school councils). The district
will identify the additional efforts taken to elicit parent participation. The
progress report is due April 15, 2006.
The district needs to ensure it has the ability and means to support students that
are not placed in a Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) setting. If the parent has
“opted out” of SEI, what types of ESL supports are available at each level (i.e.
elementary, middle and high)? What is the nature and frequency of the available
support from appropriately licensed ESL staff?
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
The district will identify the available ESL supports at each level and provide
examples of the supports to students. The progress report is due April 15, 2006.
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
The district groups students of different ages only if the
students have the same English proficiency level.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The district provides translated notifications to parents. The
district should continue ensure translated documents are
available for report cards, progress reports and handbooks.
Furthermore, the district should continue to ensure the
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 18 of 21
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
availability of translated documents in the low incidence
languages - an essential element of compliance with this
criterion.
The district provides translated programs of study. The district
should review its data to ensure LEP students have access to
programs such as special education services, Title I,
vocational studies and placement in honors or advance
placement classes.
The district must ensure that documents advertising nonacademic, extracurricular activities are translated into low incidence languages. Samples of
translated documents into the low incidence languages of the district will be
provided to the Department as part of the April 15, 2006 progress report.
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
and Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
The district had developed appropriate follow-up procedures
for LEP students, including the use of Individual Student
Success Plans.
What is unclear, however, is who the responsible district personnel are that
monitor the students. Is this a responsibility of guidance? The classroom
teacher? If so, is it clear what the lines of communications are? Also, what
actions are expected of staff when the student is struggling and is not making
effective progress and language issues are suspected as the cause of the student’s
difficulties? The district should seek to clarify the persons responsible and the
actions expected from staff members at each school.
The district will address the questions raised by the Department and provide its
correction action activities as part of the April 15, 2006 progress report.
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
The district should maintain updated licensing requirements.
If possible, the district should consider providing
opportunities for regular educators to receive professional
development that would lead to possible “dual” or “multiple”
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 19 of 21
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
licensure - an ideal model for the provision of a Sheltered
English Immersion program.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 20 of 21
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
The district’s professional development should ensure that
regular education staff are adequately prepared to develop and
provide Sheltered English content. If possible, the district
should seek to broaden the staff receiving the professional
development across all schools and content areas at the middle
and high school levels (i.e. science, math, social studies, etc.).
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities (To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit)
The district should anticipate a tour of facilities and classroom
observations during the next Coordinated Program Review.
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
ELE 18 Records
of LEP
Students(To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
The data submission is sufficient.
The district should anticipate that the Department would
examine the individual records of students identified as
Limited English Proficient during the course of a Coordinated
Program Review. The district may wish to consider
conducting its own preliminary record review and examining
the contents of student records using the Department’s
procedures to determine its compliance with state
requirements.
Salem Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
December 14, 2005
Page 21 of 21