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
January 27, 2006
Dr. Claire Jackson
Superintendent
Sharon Public Schools
1 School Street
Sharon MA 02067
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report: Corrected Copy
Dear Superintendent Jackson:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's revised 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 Sharon Public School Coordinated Program Review Report
issued on August 13, 2001. It has been revised to include additional documentation submitted by the
district.
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 781-338-3732. 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 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. In areas where the district has failed to implement fully its approved Corrective Action
Plan, the Department views these findings to be serious.
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 Follow-up Chairperson by Friday,
February 17, 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 781-338-3769.
Sincerely,
María I. Ruiz, 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
Andrew Nebenzahl, School Committee Chairperson
Dr. Judy Levin-Charns, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Sharon Public Schools
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL FINDINGS REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): August 13, 2001
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: November 21, 2001
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: June 18, 2002, February 25, 2003, July 31, 2003, June 25, 2004, and August 30, 2004
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: April 13 & 14, 2005
Date of this Report: January 27, 2006
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

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
Special
Education
Requirements
(including
new IDEA2004
Requirements
SE 3
Specific
Learning
Disabilities
Statutory requirements for the
determination of specific
learning disabilities have
been revised under the
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 1 of 20
For districts seeking to resolve
a previous finding in this area,
the Department will extend the
date required for final actions
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
Method(s) of
Verification
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented
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
recently reauthorized IDEA
2004. Therefore, until final
implementing regulations
have been adopted, the
Department is not making
findings related to school
district practices under this
criterion.
SE 6
Determination
of Transition
Services
Implemented
Student records
Records reviewed for
students at the high school
included appropriate vision
statements and transition
planning.
Transition planning for 14year-old students did not
fully consider the student’s
course of study in relation to
the student’s future goals, as
required by IDEA 97. IDEA
2004 now requires transition
planning for students turning
16 during the IEP period
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 2 of 20
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
on the part of the school to
June 2006 and will consider
resolution at any time following
promulgation of final federal
regulations.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
Method(s) of
Verification
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements

SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and
attendance
Partially
Implemented
Student
records, and
interviews
The district has a policy for
assigning each evaluation
team with the appropriate
members, as defined by law
and regulation.
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
Partial
There was no evidence
found in the student
records reviewed that an
absent administrator to a
Team meeting had
designated a specific
Team member to
authorize the commitment
of resources according to
the district’s policy.
Three of ten student
records had IEP Team
attendance forms
indicating that no regular
education teacher was
present. (Preschool, K,
and Grade 7)
Send a memorandum to the
district’s administrators and key
personnel regarding the
district’s policy and procedures
about the required attendance
of a regular education teacher
and an administrator or
designee with authority to
commit the resources of the
district at IEP Team meetings.
Direct that such authority be
identified on the meeting
attendance sheet. Submit a
copy of the memo by May 1,
2006.
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 3 of 20
Submit a list of all district
administrators and staff
authorized to be designated
with authority to commit the
resources of the school district
at Team meetings by school
level, by May 1, 2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements
Student records
The district provides progress
reports to the parent
containing information about
the student’s progress in
meeting the goals of the IEP.
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
Partially
Implemented
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
In some instances,
progress reports did not
include:
a) Specific information
on the student’s
progress toward the
annual goal and
b) The extent to which
such progress is
sufficient to enable
the child to achieve
the annual goals in
the IEP.
Student record reviews
conducted by district staff,
and confirmed by DOE
staff, indicated that three
of ten records were
missing a progress report
(two at the elementary
level and one at the
middle school level)
Review with Chairpersons and
key personnel the required
elements to be addressed when
reporting a student’s progress,
and submit a copy of the
meeting agenda and attendance
sheet by May 1, 2006.
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 4 of 20
Submit a sample of progress
reports, three from each levelpreschool, elementary, middle
and high school, from
December 2005– February
2006 by May 1, 2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
Method(s) of
Verification
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements

SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
Partially
Implemented
Documentation,
student records,
and interviews
The district conducts an
annual review of student’s
IEP at least annually, and in
most cases on or before the
anniversary date of
implementation of the IEP.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined
Not Fully
Implemented
Or
Additional
Issues Have
Been
Identified

Partial
Basis of Findings
Regarding Incomplete
or Ineffective
Implementation of
Approved Corrective
Action Plan
Or
Basis of Findings of
Additional
Noncompliance
The district did not hold
annual reviews on or
before the annual date in
two (one middle school
and one high school
record) of the ten records
reviewed.
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Review with Chairpersons and
key personnel at the middle
school and high school level
the requirements for conducting
the annual reviews of student’s
IEP so that a new IEP can be
developed and approved by the
time the previous IEP date
expires, and provide a copy of
the meeting agenda and
attendance sheet by May 1,
2006.
Submit a randomly selected list
of 10 IEPs, including
anniversary dates and annual
review dates, for students at the
middle and high school levels,
for IEP meetings held from
January through April by May
1, 2006.
SE 15
Outreach by
the School
District
(Child Find)
Implemented
Documentation
and interviews
The district conducts
appropriate outreach
activities to find children in
need of special education as
required by state and federal
law.
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 5 of 20
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

SE 17
Initiation of
services at
age three
and Early
Intervention
transition
procedures
Implemented
Documentation,
student records,
and interviews
The district initiates referral
activities for eligible children
before the child turns twoand-one-half years of age in
order to ensure the
development and
implementation of an IEP by
the date of the child’s third
birthday.
SE 18A
IEP
development
and content
Implemented
Documentation,
student records,
and interviews
The Team, including the
parent, upon determining that
the student is eligible for
special education, develops
an IEP at the Team meeting
using evaluation information
to guide development of
measurable, annual goals and
objectives, including
individually designed
instruction for the student.
The IEP is completed
addressing all elements of the
most current IEP format
provided by the Department.
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
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 6 of 20
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
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
Documentation,
student records,
and interviews
The district usually provides
the completed IEP to the
parent /guardian immediately
following the development of
the IEP.
Partial
Two student records at the
elementary level.
indicated that the
proposed IEP was not
provided to parents
immediately following the
Team meeting.
Submit a review of all IEP
Team meetings held this school
year in the district for
compliance with the required
timelines for providing the
parent a copy of the proposed
IEP immediately after the Team
meeting (within 3 to 5 days).
The results should include the
number of IEPs issued, the
number that meet the
“immediately” standard and a
narrative description of
additional steps taken by the
district if noncompliance is still
evident. Submit the results by
May 1, 2006.
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

SE 18 B
Determination
Partially
Implemented
of
placement;
immediate
provision of
IEP to
parent.
SE 20
Least
restrictive
program
selected
SE 26
Parent
participation
in meetings.
The placement selected by
the Team is the least
restrictive environment
consistent with the needs of
the student.
Implemented
Documentation,
student records,
and interviews
The district considers the
least restrictive environment
for students through Team
discussion at IEP meetings.
Implemented
Student
records,
The district provides the
parent(s) with written notices
inviting their participation at
Team meetings.
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 7 of 20
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented
Student records,
The district provides parents
with a copy of procedural
safeguards and parent rights
with the IEP or notice of no
eligibility, as required by
state and federal law.
See SE 18 B.
SE 29
Communicat
ions are in
English and
primary
language of
home
Implemented
Student
Records,
Interviews
The district provides
communications in the
primary language of the
home as appropriate and
when needed.
SE 32
Parent
Advisory
Council for
Special
Education
Implemented
Documentation,
and interviews
The district has an
established district-wide
Parent Advisory Council on
special education that meets
the requirements of this
criterion.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

SE 28
Parent
provided the
IEP or notice
of no
eligibility
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
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 8 of 20
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented
Documentation,
and interviews
The Administrator of Special
Education oversees the
provision of appropriate
instructional support,
Curriculum Accommodation
Plan, Coordination with
Special Education staff and
educational services in the
home or hospital.
Implemented
Documentation,
and interviews
Implemented
Documentation,
and interviews
The district provides ongoing
professional development to
staff regarding special
education, and meets the
requirements of training on
an annual basis.
Documentation indicated a
system-wide self-evaluation
of district special education
programs. Included in the
self-evaluation are measures
of success based on students’
local and statewide
assessment results, drop out
rates and graduation rates for
special education students.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

SE 50
Responsibilities of the
School
Principal
and
Administrator
of Special
Education
SE 54
Professional
Development
regarding
special
education
SE 56
Special
education
programs
and services
are evaluated
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
The district should
consider assigning a
regular education
administrator to oversee
the DCAP and HomeHospital services, as these
are legally regular
education and not special
education functions.
Civil Rights
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 9 of 20
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements
Partially
Implemented
Documentation,
student records,
and interviews
The district has a written
policy requiring prospective
employers to sign a statement
to comply with applicable
federal and state laws
prohibiting discrimination in
hiring or employment
practices.
The district indicated that
Sharon Public Schools does
not require the services of
recruitment agencies.
Partially
Implemented
Documentation,
student records,
and interviews
The district has handbooks
and codes of conduct for
students and staff that meet
the requirements of the law
available in English.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

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 did not
provide a copy of a
statement of assurance to
be signed by prospective
employers seeking to
recruit or employ students
at Sharon Public Schools.
Submit a statement of
assurance form letter, for
prospective employers to sign,
which states that the
prospective employer will not
discriminate based on sex, race,
color, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, religion or
disability when recruiting
and/or employing students from
Sharon Public Schools by May
1, 2006.
The district did not
specify the procedure for
providing the translated
documents described
under this criterion to
parents and students upon
their request.
Submit a description of the
district’s policy and procedures
for translating the handbook
and code of conduct at the
request of a parent or student
whose primary language is
other than English by May 1,
2006.
Methods Of
Administration
MOA 9
Hiring and
employment
practices of
prospective
employers of
students
MOA 10A
Handbooks
And Codes
Of Conduct
Partial
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 10 of 20
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented
Documentation
The district has designated
the appropriate civil rights
coordinator, and has adopted
and published grievance
procedures in staff, parent
and student handbooks.
Implemented
Documentation
The district ensures that there
are nondiscriminatory
practices in the
administration of
scholarships, prizes and
awards.
Implemented
Documentation,
and interviews
The district provided a copy
of its “Civil Rights:
Guidelines, Policies and
Procedures” manual, which
appropriately addresses the
school district employment
practices.
The district includes a
nondiscrimination statement
in recruitment vacancy
announcements and job
advertisements.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

MOA 11A
Designation
of
coordinators
- grievance
procedures
MOA 15
Nondiscriminatory
administration
of awards,
scholarships,
and prizes
MOA 18A
School
district
employment
practices
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
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 11 of 20
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Further Progress
Reporting Requirements
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Approved
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Findings
Regarding Corrective
Action Plan Activities
Or
Basis of Findings
Regarding Implementation
of New IDEA
Requirements
Documentation,
and interviews
The district has a Civil Rights
Handbook that school
principals review with all
staff at the first faculty
meeting of the school year.
Implemented
Documentation,
and interviews
The Curriculum Director and
the Media Coordinator are
responsible for reviewing the
educational materials before
materials are distributed
system-wide.
Partial
Implemented
Documentation,
and interviews
The district is in the process
of developing and
implementing the English
Learner Education (ELE)
program based on a districtwide self-evaluation study
conducted during school year
2004-2005.
Corrective
Action Plan
Determined to
be Substantially
Implemented
and Effective or
New IDEA
Requirements
Implemented

MOA 21
Staff
training
regarding
civil rights
MOA 24
Curriculum
review
MOA 25
Institutional
selfevaluation
Implemented
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
Partial
The district did not submit
evidence that a selfevaluation of its K-12
program is conducted
annually to ensure that all
students have equal access
to all programs, and that
appropriate measures are
taken to resolve any
barriers or issues as
indicated by the
evaluation.
Submit the results of the
district’s self-evaluation of the
students’ access to K-12
programs to ensure that all
students regardless of race,
color, sex, religion, national
origin, limited English
proficiency, sexual orientation,
disability, or housing status,
have equal access to all
programs, including athletics
and other extracurricular
activities, and include the
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 12 of 20
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
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
action plan implemented to
maintain access and/or remedy
any identified barriers in order
to ensure the equal
participation of all students in
school programs and extracurricular activities in the
district, by May 1, 2006.
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 13 of 20
Sharon 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
Suggested 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 has a policy and procedures for assessing the
English proficiency of all limited English proficient (LEP)
students. The district indicates that most of the ELE staff are
qualified to administer MELA-O to LEP students in grades
K-12.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
The district’s MCAS participation policy contains a statement
of assurance that indicates that the district will provide
bilingual dictionaries to LEP and FLEP students taking the
MCAS.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
The district has a policy for the identification of limited
English proficient students, and for their placement in the
Sheltered English Immersion classrooms at the schools.
The policy for assessing students whose first language is other
than English identifies the MELA-O as one of the criteria for
determining English proficiency. The MELA-O is also listed in
the “Parental Notification Form”. Please delete the MELA-O
criterion from your list of criteria because this assessment is
not appropriate for grades 1 and 2.
Revise the district policy and procedures for translating the home language survey
to parents whose language is other than English.
Revised English assessment policy and parental notification form that will exclude
the use of the MELA-O as one of the criteria for determining language
proficiency. You may include the use of the IPT Oral for grades 3-12 as a criterion
for language proficiency assessment.
To access samples of other language versions of the home language survey, please
go to http://www.matsol.org, click on K-12, then click on Information on
Emerging Programs, and see Home Language Survey samples.
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 14 of 20
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Suggested Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Although the district has reported that there are eleven
different languages represented in the 31 ELE students, the
home assessment language survey, which is contained in the
district’s Student Enrollment Form, according to the policy, is
translated in Chinese and Russian only.
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
The district has a policy for waiver implementation practices.
The district’s waiver policy provides insufficient information
about the district waiver practices.
The district did not provide a description of the program
placement practices, type of language support program,
content, curriculum and overall structure of the program, and
staff training.
Revise English Learner Education waiver policy, describing the district’s practices
and procedures in the following areas:
a) The process in which the district will provide the parent with a
description of the ELE program in the parent primary language.
b) The process in which the district will respond to a parent request for a
waiver, and what academic support services are available to the student to
ensure the student’s academic success.
c) The circumstances in which waivers may be granted to students under age
10, and who and how the waiver request will be authorized.
d) The circumstances in which waivers may be granted to students over age
10, and who and how the waiver request will be authorized.
e) The use of the district’s ELE Withdrawal Form
Revise implementation practices addressing the following programmatic areas:
a) Program placement practices
b) Type of language support program
c) Teaching methodology, classroom instruction modifications and academic
support system
d) Availability and use of supplementary educational materials
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 15 of 20
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
The district has a form letter entitled, “English Learner
Education (ELE) Exit Form” which communicates to the
parent that the child no longer requires ELE services.
Suggested Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
e) Availability of native language speaker teachers or paraprofessionals
including the language other than English spoken for student support in
primary language.
f) Professional development of staff (Please refer to SE 15)
Revise the district’s policy and procedures for designating a student from Limited
English Proficient (LEP) to Formerly Limited English Proficient (FLEP), program
exit.
Revise policy, listing multiple assessment measures used in determining program
exit and readiness including:
The district did not provided a description of the program
placement practices for determining program exit and
readiness.
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
The district met with parents on January 12, 2005, and
provided information about the ELE program.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
MEPA-R/W past and current scores
MELA-O past and present scores
MCAS ELA scores
Writing samples
Grades
Teacher’s observation & recommendation
Local criteria for grade advancement
Revise documentation of the district’s implementation practices for parent
involvement in the ELE program for school years 2005-2006 including:
a) Parent oriented activities that will encourage their participation in their
child’s education, and
b) Parent-teacher communication activities
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 16 of 20
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
The district did not provide documentation about what type of
English language support will be provided to students whose
parents have opted out of the ELE program.
Suggested Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Revise documentation of the district’s implementation practices for providing
English language support to students whose parents have declined entry to a
sheltered English immersion, two-way bilingual, or other ELE that will include:
a) Policy and procedures for placing students in a regular education
classroom after parents have opted out of an ELE program.
b) Policy and procedures for monitoring student’s educational progress and
for providing additional support, if needed, to ensure that the student has
equal opportunity to have his or her English language and academic needs
met.
c) Policy and procedures for keeping parents of LEP students informed
about their child’s progress.
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
The district provided a copy of “2004/05 List of Students
Receiving LEP Services,” a student roster of 31 LEP students
attending an ELE program.
The district did not provide documentation about the ELE
program instructional groups.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
Revise description and appropriate documentation of the district’s implementation
practices for instructional grouping, including:
a) Policy and procedures for ensuring that the academic instruction and
language support provided to these students is conducive to academic
achievement and based on the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks.
Also, see ELE 3.
Also, see ELE 3.
The district has a “Parent Notification Form”, which notifies
parents that their child has been designated as limited English
proficient, and the criteria used to make that determination.
Revise documentation of the district’s implementation practices for parental
notification, including:
The “Parent Notification Form” includes the MELA-O as a
criterion for determining language proficiency, which is not
appropriate for students in grade 1 and 2.
Also, the district provided samples of other parent notifications
concerning school matters in English, some Chinese language
and Russian.
The district did not provide samples of the “Parent
a) Procedures for notifying parents of LEP of their child’s designation as
limited English proficient and placement in the ELE program. Submit
revised parent notification letter in English and in all available languages.
b) Policy and procedures for providing to parents and guardians of LEP
students, reports cards and progress reports with the same frequency as
general education reporting in a language understandable to the parent or
guardian.
Revise version of the “Parental notification Form” excludes the use of the
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 17 of 20
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Notification Form” in the primary language of the parent.
Suggested Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
MELA-O as one of the criteria for determining language proficiency.
Also, the “Parent Notification Form” is missing some of the
requirements.
“Under this standard, parent notification letters must contain
(a) the reasons for identification of the student as limited
English proficient (LEP); (b) the child’s level of English
proficiency; (c) the program placement and/or method of
instruction used in the program, and (g) the parents’ right to
apply for a waiver (see ELE 4), or to decline to enroll their
child in the program (see ELE 8).”
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
The district did not provide documentation about equal access
to academic programs and services.
Revise documentation of the district’s implementation practices that will ensure
equal access to academic programs and services.
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
and Extracurricular
Programs
The district did not provide documentation about equal access
to nonacademic programs and services.
Revise description and documentation of the district’s implementation practices
that will ensure equal access to nonacademic programs and services.
The district did not provide documentation about follow-up
support to students who have exited an English learner
education program.
Revise description and documentation of the district’s implementation practices
that will ensure appropriate follow-up of students who have existed an English
learner instruction program including:
a) Policy and monitoring procedures for a period of two years after students
have exited an English learner education program. Include any forms
used in support of this criterion, and indicate which staff members are
involved in this process.
b) Policy and procedures for providing access to adult basic education to
students, who were previously enrolled in a public secondary school in
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 18 of 20
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Suggested 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 Commonwealth, came from a country other than the United States and
who were unable to achieve English language proficiency as determined
by assessments.
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
All nine (9) teachers working in the ELE program of Sharon
Public Schools are fluent and literate in English.
Documentation of teacher’s licenses was provided for six (6)
of the nine (9) teachers working in the ELE program.
Revise description of implementation practices to ensure licensure and fluency
requirements, including:
a) A list of all teachers who instruct limited English proficient students;
b) Evidence of either appropriate licenses or professional development
activities, including topics covered, duration of training, resume of trainer
and a roster of attendees. (Also refer to ELE 15).
It is unclear whether the certified ESL teacher provides ESL
instruction to ELE students at all levels.
Some of the teachers listed in the ELE staff roster for school
year 2004-2005 have pending or expired licenses.
Revise the information in the Personnel Data Sheet #7, found in the Coordinated
Program Review Procedures School District Information Package for M.G.L.
Chapter 71A – English Learner Education (ELE) in public schools including
teachers’ current licenses and expiration dates, and copies of any approved
waivers.
Submit evidence of professional development for teachers who are not dually
licensed, or co-teaching.
Submit a description of the ESL services at each of the three school levels
(elementary, middle and high school levels), including:
a) A list of ESL certified teachers, and their schedule
b) A copy of the students ESL class schedule
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 19 of 20
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
The district does not have a plan for professional development
of teachers teaching LEP students.
Suggested Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Submit a district-wide professional development plan, to train teachers of LEP
students in at least the following areas:
a) Second language learning and teaching
b) Sheltering content instruction
c) Assessment of speaking and listening
d) Teaching reading and writing to limited English proficient students.
Submit the date, training topics and agenda and attendance sheets of training
provided to teachers of LEP on a district-wide basis.
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
ELE 18
Records of LEP
Students-
To be reviewed during the next CPR.
The district provided a copy of “2004/05 List of Students
Receiving LEP Services”, a student roster of 31 LEP students
attending an ELE 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.
The district did not provided a plan for evaluating the
effectiveness of the ELE program in meeting the goals of the
program.
To be reviewed during the next CPR.
Sharon Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
January 27, 2006
Page 20 of 20