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
April 18, 2007
Anthony Pierantozzi, Superintendent
Somerville Public Schools
181 Washington Street
Somerville, MA 02143
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Pierantozzi:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review
Report (Mid-Cycle Report). This report contains findings based on onsite monitoring
conducted to verify the implementation and effectiveness of corrective action approved
or ordered by the Department to address findings of noncompliance included in the
Somerville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Report issued on August 15,
2005. The Mid-cycle Report also contains findings based on onsite monitoring of special
education compliance criteria that have been created or substantially changed in response
to IDEA 2004.
Another component of the Department’s Mid-cycle Review is the review of your school
district or charter school's self-assessment in the area of English learner education (ELE).
(In the remainder of this letter, please read “district” as meaning “school district or
charter school.”) The purpose of this review is to determine whether your district is
implementing the significant changes in M.G.L. Chapter 71A, governing the education of
limited English proficient students, that were adopted by voters by means of Question 2
in 2002. The Department has reviewed your district’s ELE self-assessment
(documentation and any written analysis of compliance) and, based solely on that selfassessment, is providing you in this report with findings on your ELE program and the
corresponding corrective action to be implemented. Your district is urged to request
technical assistance in relation to any of these findings or this prescribed corrective action
from me or from staff in the Department’s Office of Language Acquisition and
Achievement at 781-338-3534. ELE guidance documents are available on the
Department’s website at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/.
While the Department of Education found your district to have resolved certain
noncompliance issues, others were partially corrected or not addressed at all, or the
Department’s onsite team identified new issues of noncompliance, either noncompliance
1
with special education criteria added or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004,
noncompliance with ELE criteria, or other new noncompliance. Where the district has
failed to implement its approved Corrective Action Plan, the Department views these
findings to be serious.
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed
corrective action for the district that must be implemented without delay. You will find
these requirements for corrective action included in the attached report, along with
requirements for progress reporting. Please provide the Department with your written
assurance that all of the Department's requirements for corrective action will be
implemented by your district within the timelines specified. You must submit your
statement of assurance to Stacey Klasnick by May 4, 2007.
Your staff's cooperation throughout this Mid-cycle Review is appreciated. Should you
like clarification of any part of our report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781338-3792.
Sincerely,
Stacey Klasnick, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Roberta Bauer, School Committee Chairperson
Louis Piacentini, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Somerville Public Schools
ONSITE MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND OF CERTAIN NEW REQUIREMENTS
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): March 7, 2005-March 11, 2005
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: December 18, 2003
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: March 15, 2004, October 18, 2004, March 31, 2005, January 13, 2006
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: February 8-9, 2007
Date of this Report: April 18, 2007
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 1 of 31
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2006-2007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action Not
Implement
ed or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Special Ed.
Criteria Cited in
CPR Report and
Monitored in
Mid-cycle
MOA 4
Disproportionality
(if Cited in the
CPR Report)
SE 9
Timelines
SE 17
Early
Intervention
Substantially
Implemented
Student
record
review,
document
review, and
staff
interviews
Substantially
Implemented
Student
record
review and
staff
interviews
The district is meeting the 45
school working day
requirements for holding a
Team meeting and determining
eligibility. The district is
immediately providing the
required documents to the
parent after concluding the IEP
Team meeting.
The onsite team reviewed
student records that
demonstrated the effective
transition and continuity of
services of children referred
through Early Intervention.
Records indicated the
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 2 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2006-2007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

SE 29
Communication
in Primary
Language
Partial
Student
record
review and
staff
interviews
development and
implementation of an IEP for
eligible children by the date of
the child’s third birthday in
accordance with federal
requirements.
The district is using home
language tracking forms to
identify parents who require
oral interpretations and written
translations.
Corrective
Action Not
Implement
ed or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Partial
Student records
demonstrated that when
the home language of the
parent was identified as a
language other than
English, the district did
not provide translated
progress reports.
Additional records
reviewed by the
Department indicated that
in a few instances, N1
notices in Portuguese
were only partially
translated. Somali
families that required oral
interpretation did not
always have an oral
interpreter at the Team
meeting.
Please provide training to
chairpersons in the district’s
schools regarding the
translation of IEP progress
reports for families whose
primary language is not
English. Please review with the
district’s chairpersons the
requirement to completely
translate N1 notices when
necessary. Please provide the
chairpersons with the district’s
procedures for procuring the
necessary translations and
interpreters. Provide evidence
of the training including signed
attendance sheets, a copy of the
materials distributed; identify
when the training was held and
the name of the presenter.
Please identify the district’s
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 3 of 31
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2006-2007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action Not
Implement
ed or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
resources for providing parents
with Somali interpreters.
Please conduct internal
monitoring of student
records at each school level
(i.e. elementary, middle
school, high school) for
evidence of translated
progress reports, evidence
that the content of N1
notices is appropriately
translated and the provision
of Somali interpreters at
Team meetings. Identify, by
role, the person(s)
responsible for conducting
the monitoring and provide
the Department with the
results of the monitoring
which must include the
number of records reviewed,
the rate of compliance and a
description of any additional
steps taken by the district if
noncompliance was
identified during the
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 4 of 31
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2006-2007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action Not
Implement
ed or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
district’s local review.
Please provide the
documentation to the
Department by June 29,
2007.
Yes
SE 53
Paraprofessionals
Document
review and
staff
interviews
The document review and staff
interviews indicated that
paraprofessionals are trained to
assist in providing special
education services.
Paraprofessionals do not
design instruction and are
supervised by appropriately
certified personnel who are
readily available to provide
such supervision.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 5 of 31
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Student
record review
and document
review
The student record review and
document review demonstrated
that high school students have
well written transition plans in
place. The school district is
using the Department of
Education’s Transition
Planning Chart.
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6 ##1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services
Yes
*Please note that recently
enacted IDEA-2004
regulations have changed the
requirements for transition
planning. The transitionplanning chart will become a
mandated form, which should
be maintained with the IEP,
Refer to Administrative
Advisory SPED 2007-1 for
guidance at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
advisories/07_1.html or the
Department’s guidance on
transition planning at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
links/transition.html.
Please review the new
requirements for transition
planning and services with the
appropriate staff. No
additional progress reports are
required.
SE 8
Student
The district has provided
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 6 of 31
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
Yes
record
review,
document
review and
staff
interviews
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation
Yes
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
Yes
Student
record review
and staff
interviews
Student
record review
and staff
interviews
training to staff on using a
standard format for the “Team
Process” and “excusal letters"
for Team members who cannot
be present at meetings. Upon
review of the selected student
records, and based upon staff
interviews, the onsite team
determined that all required
personnel attend Team
meetings.
Student records indicated that
three- year re-evaluations are
occurring in a timely manner.
Progress reports are being
issued as required and
accurately reflect the progress
towards the IEP goals and/or
any action that might be taken
if a student is not making
progress. Based on staff
interviews, the district is
reconvening Teams to discuss
a lack of progress and the
appropriate steps necessary to
ensure progress.
*Please note that recently
enacted IDEA-2004
regulations have now changed
the content requirements for
IEP progress reports. Refer to
Administrative Advisory SPED
2007-1 for guidance. The
Department has changed the
progress report form and it is
now available on the
Department’s Special
Education website at:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
iep/eng_toc.html.
No further progress report is
required.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 7 of 31
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes
Criterion
Implemented

Yes
Yes
SE 33
Involvement in
the General
Curriculum
Yes
SE 39A
Procedures for
services to
eligible private
school students
whose parents
reside in the
district
Yes
Method(s) of
Verification
Student record
review and staff
interviews
Student record
review, staff
interview and
documentation
review
Student record
review
Student record
review and
document review
Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Implemented
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Student records
demonstrated that the
school district held annual
IEP meetings prior to the
anniversary date of the
IEP.
The district has procedures
in place to conduct dispute
resolutions meetings.
Student records and copies
of student schedules
demonstrated that students
participate in the general
curriculum.
The school district
provided a copy of the
SIMS report demonstrating
that six students attend
private schools at private
expense. Student record
reviews demonstrated that
the students receive special
education services from the
district. Copies of the N1
forms for reevaluation and
annual review meetings,
demonstrated that the
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 8 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
SE 39B
Procedures for
services to
eligible
students in
private schools
in the district
whose parents
reside out of
state
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Yes
Student record
review and
document review
Yes
Student record
review and
document review
district continues to meet
its obligations under state
and federal requirements.
Team meeting invitations
and attendance sheets
demonstrated that the
private school
representatives participated
in the IEP process.
The school district
provided a copy of a
statement of assurance that
there are no students
enrolled at private expense
in private schools in the
district and whose parents
reside out of state. Based
on document review the
school district does have
procedures in place for
students enrolled in private
schools at private expense
whose parents reside out of
state.
Document review
demonstrated that the
school district provided a
code of conduct for each
building. The school
district provided the
following documentation
to the Department for
verification:
 A narrative
describing tracking
of suspensions;
 A copy of the
school district’s
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 9 of 31
suspension report;
A copy of the
school district’s
protocol for
developing
functional
behavioral
assessments and
behavior
intervention plans;
 A copy of
procedures of
student discipline
under the IDEA
Reauthorization
regarding “10 day
maximum rule” of
suspension; and
 A copy of its
Manifestation
Determination
procedures.
Student record reviews
demonstrated the
appropriate use of a
manifestation
determination.

Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 10 of 31
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective
Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Requirements
Partial
The school district did not
provided evidence of
annual staff training on
the use of restraint,
consistent with regulatory
requirements, for all of
their schools in the
district.
The school district must
provide evidence of staff in all
schools receiving annual
restraint training consistent
with regulatory requirements.
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
MOA 17A
Physical
Restraint
Partial
Document
review and
staff
interviews
The document review indicated
that the school district’s
procedure for physical restraint
is in the Parent’s Guide and
Colleague’s Guide.
The district indicated that two
staff members act as staff
trainers. The district continues
to offer professional
development opportunities for
staff training in crisis prevention
and behavior management.
Twice a year, the school district
provides Crisis Prevention
Intervention training to the staff
designated “restrainers” at each
building.
The school district provided
copies of agendas handed out at
the first staff meeting for seven
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 11 of 31
Please provide evidence of
annual restraint training from
the following schools: A.D.
Healey, John A. Cummings
Elementary, Brown
Elementary, and West
Somerville School. Please
include the agenda, signed
attendance sheet, and any
training materials. Please
submit the evidence to the
Department by June 29, 2007.
MOA 21
Staff Civil
Rights
Training
Implemented
Document
review and
staff
interview
out of the ten schools;
demonstrating the
implementation of staff training
at least annually on the use of
restraint consistent with
regulatory requirements.
The school district provided a
statement indicating that
principals met and reviewed the
“Colleague Guide” during the
fall with their staff. As part of
the review, the principals review
civil rights responsibilities with
school personnel. The school
district provided agendas from
the autumn staff meetings from
each school.
Other
Regulated
Programs
Monitored
During this
Mid-cycle
Review
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 12 of 31
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
SE 24
Notice to
Parent
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Partial
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Student
record
review
New Issue
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
The student record review
demonstrated that at the
high school level, N1
notices did not always
address the six key
questions and some
notices were illegible. At
the preschool level, when
a parent requested an
initial evaluation, the
district notified the parent
in writing within five
school days, however, the
notification stipulated that
the school district would
like to meet with the
parent and discuss the
concerns rather than
sending a consent form to
evaluate and the district’s
notice of procedural
safeguards within five
days of the receipt of a
request for an evaluation.
While the district can
request a meeting with the
parent to review the
The school district must train
the high school special
education staff on the
appropriate content of N1
notices to ensure that the six
key questions are answered.
Please provide evidence of the
training including signed
attendance sheets, a copy of the
materials distributed; identify
when the training was held and
the name of the presenter to the
Department by June 29, 2007.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 13 of 31
Please conduct internal
monitoring of student records
at the high school level posttraining for the completeness
of the content of the written
notices. Identify by role, the
person(s) responsible for
conducting the internal
monitoring and provide the
Department with the results,
including the number of
records reviewed and the rate
of compliance, along with a
parent’s concerns, the
district is obligated under
the regulations to provide
the consent form to
evaluate within 5 days of
the district’s receipt of a
request for an evaluation.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 14 of 31
description of any additional
steps taken by the district if
non- compliance was identified
by local personnel.
The district administrator must
meet with the Early Childhood
Team Facilitator to revise and
review the district’s procedures
for providing notice to the
parent regarding proposal to
initiate an evaluation. The
district will provide its
updated, written procedures
and a statement of assurance
indicating that the new
procedures were reviewed with
all applicable staff to the
Department. The corrective
action is due to the Department
by June 29, 2007.
Somerville Public Schools
English Learner Education (ELE) Requirements
Mid-Cycle Review Findings and Corrective Action Based on the Department’s Review Of Local Self-Assessments
(Please refer to full text of 2006-2007 CPR requirements for ELE and related implementation guidance at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc )
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
The school district provided copies of the
following assessment instruments:
 Idea Proficiency Tests (IPT)
 Massachusetts English
Proficiency Assessment-Oral
(MELA-O)
 Pre IPT
 IPT 1 & 2
 IPT Reading and Writing
 Bilingual Syntax Measure
The school district provided a description
of implementation practices and a list of
certified MELA-O administrators. The
students are participating in
Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS), MELA-O
and Massachusetts English Proficiency
Assessment (MEPA) as required.
No corrective action is required.
The school district is providing all
standard accommodations for MCAS
No corrective action is required.
ELE 2
MCAS
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 15 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Participation
participation when necessary.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
The school district provided a copy of its
Home Language Survey translated into
seven different languages. The district
has MELA-O certified staff at each
school. The districted provided a roster
of all Limited English Proficient students
and listed the students’ MELA-O and
MEPA scores.
No corrective action is required.
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
The district provided copies of its home
language survey in seven different
languages. The district provided a copy
of its waiver practices and forms
demonstrating compliance with state
regulations. The district also provided a
list of students who have received
waivers with copies of the completed
waivers.
No corrective action is required.
ELE 5
Program
Placement
and Structure
The school district provided a summary
describing the district’s ELE programs
and services.
No corrective action is required.
The Kindergarten SEI program consists
of three classrooms housed at the early
childhood center. English language
proficiency level, preschool experience,
and the home language of the students
determine enrollment. SEI kindergarten
teachers hold PreK-3 and/or ESL/ELL
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 16 of 31
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
licenses and participate in all planned
district sponsored ELL professional
development activities. SEI kindergarten
teachers and/or paraprofessionals in each
class are fluent in Spanish and/or
Portuguese, two of the more prominent
languages spoken within the district.
The grades 1-5 SEI Program consists of
three classrooms housed at two sites.
Enrollment is determined by English
proficiency. Initial student placement is
based on oral language assessment, native
language assessment and the review of
academic records. Continued student
placement is based on MEPA (grade three
or higher), MELA-O and classroom
performance data, and the months/years
the student has spent in an English
speaking school (for those students who
originated in a different country).
The Grades 6-8 SEI program initial
student placement is based on oral and
written language assessment, math
assessment, and native language
assessment as well a review of academic
records. Continued student placement is
based on MEPA, MELA-O, classroom
performance data, and the months or
years the student has attended an English
speaking school. A team of six teachers
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 17 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
provides English Limited Development
(ELD) in instructional groupings
determined by the English proficiency of
students (based on the analysis of MEPA,
MELA-O, classroom performance data,
and month/years in the United States
schools). There is an additional focus on
the specific needs of newcomers arriving
during the school year in basic math skills
as well as beginning level ELD. ELL
students also participate in before school,
after school, and in summer academic
support programs.
Grades 9-12 SEI Program initial student
placement is based on oral and written
language assessment, math assessment,
native language assessment as well as
review of academic records. Continued
student placement is based on MEPA,
MELA-O, classroom performance data,
and months/years in the United States
school. Students are scheduled in double
block ESL classes for English language
development and Alternative Bilingual
Support (ABS) or Sheltered English
Instruction in the content areas.
Beginning level students who have signed
parental waivers receive native language
support in the content areas in ABS
classes. Teachers fluent in Spanish,
Portuguese, and Haitian Creole who hold
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 18 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
ELL/TBE and Content Area licensure
teach ABS courses. Early Intermediate,
Intermediate and Transitioning level
students are enrolled in sheltered content
classes with teachers who have received
SEI training. ELL students also
participate in before school, after school,
Saturday, and summer academic support
groups.
Two-Way Bilingual Immersion in
English and Spanish is offered in the
Unidso Program in grades K-7.
The school district provided copies of the
ELL student roster, list of the ELL
Programs Teaching staff 2006-2007,
Annual District and School Staffing
Report, the Professional Development
Overview 2005-2006, ELL Programs and
Services Professional Development
Plans-Fall 2006, an English Language
Learner Program brochure, The
Somerville District Curriculum Guide for
Grades PK-8 and Grades 9-12, English
Language Learner Education Program
Service Data Sheet school year 20062007, the Somerville High School
Program of Studies 2006-2007and the
high school SEIP schedules to the
Department for review.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 19 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

ELE 6
Program Exit
and
Readiness
The school district provided a statement
describing the program exit criteria and
procedures, which states that a student is
transitioned out of the SEI Program based
on objective measures. The district uses
the MELA-O score of 4 or 5; MEPA
score of 4 (Transitioning Level in both
reading and writing), and/or Passing
Score in the ELA portion of the MCAS;
and meeting grade-level standards. The
district indicated that the number of years
in the program without reaching
“transition proficiency level” would not
be used as the sole basis exiting the ELE
program. The parent/guardian receives a
completion of Sheltered English
Immersion Program Form.
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
No corrective action is required.
The school district provided a copy of its
program exit letter in four different
languages. The school district provided a
list of Formerly Limited English
Proficient (FLEP) students.
The school district provided copies of its
English Language Learners Programs and
Services Parent/Guardian Involvement
Plan 2006-2007 and a flyer for English
classes for parents and guardians of
students in English Language Learner
Programs, which demonstrated the
district’s outreach to families of Limited
English Proficient students. The school
No corrective action is required.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 20 of 31
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
district provided a list of participants
along with a copy of the signed
attendance sheets of the participants
enrolled in the English class.
ELE 8
Declining
Entry to a
Program
The school district provided a list of
school council members.
The school district provided parent
withdrawal letters from the Sheltered
English Program (SEIP), the Two-Way
Unidos Program, and a refusal of
enrollment in the SEIP in four different
languages.
No corrective action is required.
The school district provided a list of
Limited English Proficient students
whose parents have opted out of the
English Language Learner (ELE)
program.
The school district provided a list of the
names and qualifications of staff
members responsible for the instruction
of students who have opted out and a
copy of a two-year monitoring form used
to monitor progress of students who have
opted out.
ELE 9
Instructional
The school district provided a description
of its implementation practices for
No corrective action is required.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 21 of 31
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Grouping
instructional grouping that is based on
English Language Proficiency Level
determined by the MEPA and MELA-O
results. The school district provided a
narrative summary of the district’s ELE
programs and services from kindergarten
through twelfth grade along with an SEI
class roster and the English Language
Development curriculum.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The school district provided a description
of its procedures for notifying the parents
in writing of their student’s placement in
any ELE program. The school district
provided copies of the notification to
parents in English, Spanish, Portuguese
and Haitian Creole. In addition to the
written notices, final report cards and
conferences with teachers are used to
keep parents informed of their child’s
placement in an ELE program for the
following year.
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
No corrective action is required.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 22 of 31
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

ELE 11
Equal Access
to Academic
Programs
and Services
LEP students have full access to
curriculum organized and based upon the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks,
assessment programs as described in the
Curriculum Accommodation Plan, access
to support services such as Child Study
referrals and MCAS preparation classes.
ELL students also participate in
vocational education programs special
education services and receive counseling
services. Information about different
programs and services that are available
to students are sent home in English,
Portuguese, Spanish and Haitian Creole.
LEP students are considered for Title I,
and other academic services following
regulations and with input from parents,
teachers, the school principal and the
school-based child study teams.
No corrective action is required.
ELE 12
Equal Access
to
Nonacademic
and
Extracurricular
Programs
The school district provided a description
of its implementation practices stating
that they have made a commitment to
provide a variety of opportunities for ELL
students to engage in English Language
Development learning experiences and
academic support activities beyond the
scope of the school day. ELL students
who have been determined to benefit
from 21st Century After School Academic
Support are enrolled in that program.
No corrective action is required.
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 23 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELL students are provided comparable
access to all nonacademic extracurricular
programs in the district.
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
The school district provided copies of
notices about nonacademic and
extracurricular programs translated into
three targeted languages and a list of all
nonacademic programs, services, and
school-sponsored extracurricular
activities that included the membership of
LEP students.
The school district provided a description
of its follow-up procedures of students
who have exited an English Learner
Education program. When an ELL
student has reached transitioning level
scores in MELA-O and MEPA, the
student will be re-designated from
“Limited English Proficient” (LEP) to
“Formerly Limited English Proficient”
(FLEP). Mainstreamed ELL students are
monitored in regards to their academic
performance for two consecutive years.
The academic performance of students is
reviewed periodically (at the end of the
first and third marking periods). FLEP
progress is monitored by the ELL
Program Specialist at the elementary
level and by the ELL Guidance Counselor
at the secondary level. If satisfactory
progress is not being maintained, and if it
No corrective action is required.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 24 of 31
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
is determined that the lack of progress is
due to English language acquisition
factors, students will be eligible for
continued SEI services.
ELL students who have “opted out” of
the SEI Program are monitored in regards
to their academic performance for two
consecutive years. The academic
performance of “opted out” students is
reviewed periodically (as noted above). If
satisfactory progress is not being
maintained and if it is determined that the
lack of progress is due to English
language acquisition factors, students will
be considered eligible for SEI services.
In addition,
teachers and principals may refer such
students for additional English language
proficiency testing, if it appears those
students need language assistance.
A copy of the completed Progress
Monitoring Form is sent to the ELL
Programs Director. The ELL Director
identifies and tracks the performance of
all ELL students who are placed in
standard education and those who are
placed in special education programs.
The school district provided copies of the
Two-Year Monitoring Report of ELL
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 25 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 14
Licensure
Requirements
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

Students in Standard Curriculum Classes,
student schedules, and a list of names and
qualifications of staff members
responsible for monitoring and for
follow-up support to FLEP students.
The school district provided copies of
teachers’ licenses, waivers and
corresponding inquiry activity summary
sheets for all staff.
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
The school district provided a list of staff’ and
inquiry activity summary sheets validating the
certification for each staff. The certificates
indicate that S.A and A.G. do not have valid
certificates according to ELAR and A.C.’s
waiver has expired.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 26 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Please provide the Department with evidence (i.e.
copies of the individual’s current certificate or
evidence that the district has obtained a waiver) for
staff members S.A., A.G., and A.C. by June 29,
2007. Please note that waivers are valid for only
one school year (i.e. the current school year of
2006-2007).
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
The school district provided a statement
that it has designed professional
development aligned with the four ELL
Categories and the competencies spelled
out by the Massachusetts Department of
Education to assist teachers in instructing
ELL students. Workshops and in-service
courses have been offered in the areas of
Sheltered Instructional Techniques and
Language and Culture awareness. The
audiences for ELL Endorsement Category
Training and ELL workshops include
SEI, ESL, bilingual, dual language and
regular education teachers. In-service
courses are open to all Somerville
educators.
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
No corrective action is required.
The school district provided copies of the
Somerville Public Schools Professional
Development Overview 2005-2006 and
the ELL/SEI Professional Development
Plan 2006-2007.
The school district provided copies of
signed professional development
attendance sheets for the following
trainings:
 English Language Development
and Sheltered English
Instruction: Building on Best
Practices conducted on
September 27, October 25,
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 27 of 31
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment






Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
November 15, 2006 and January
31, 2007;
MELA-O Cohort #1 conducted
on October 10 and November 7,
2006;
Enhancing English Language
Learning conducted on October
10, 21, 27, 28, and November 3
and 4, 2006;
Building on Effective Strategies
for ELL conducted on October
23 November 27, 2006 and
January 29, 2007;
Building on Best Practices:
English Language Development
and Sheltered Content in the
Elementary Classroom
conducted on December 19,
2006 and
Spanish Language Standards,
Curriculum, Benchmarks, and
Outcomes conducted on January
4, 2007.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 28 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities
The school district provided a statement
that due to the construction of a new
elementary school, portions of the SEI
program have been housed in temporary
sites. The new school is scheduled to
open in September 2007. English
Language Learners are assigned
comparable services, materials, and space
allocation as offered to other students in
the district.
No corrective action is required.
ELE 17
Program
Evaluation
The school district provided a copy of the
ELL Program Evaluation conducted
during the 2004-2005 school year.
No corrective action is required.
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
The school district provided a description
of the program adjustments made in
response to the program evaluation. The
following demonstrates some of the steps
that have been taken to address the needs
identified in the evaluation:
 The position of ELL Program
Director was reinstated;
 An additional beginner level of
ESL was implemented at the
high school;
 An ELL Welcome Center was
established at the high school;
 Whenever possible, multiple
grade classes have been
eliminated at the elementary
level;
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 29 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment









Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Additional learning was afforded
through before/after school
tutoring at all levels;
More effective student
scheduling at the high school
level;
Where enrollment numbers
allow, “newcomer” classes have
been established;
A new English Language
Development series was adopted:
Avenues K-5, Highpoints 6-12;
Ongoing professional
development is aligned to the
ELL Endorsement Categories;
Principals received training in
the supervision of SEI
instruction;
Test item analysis of ELA and
the Math MCAS test has
provided teachers with needed
information to adjust and
differentiate instruction
according to students’ needs; and
An ongoing ELL Parent and
Guardian involvement initiative
was established through the
offering of English classes and
discussion groups.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 30 of 31
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion Determined to be
Implemented Based on Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment

ELE 18
Records of
LEP
Students(To be
reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
This criterion will be reviewed during the
next Coordinated Program Review visit.
Findings of Noncompliance Based on
Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially
Implemented or Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
No corrective action is required.
Somerville Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 18, 2007
Page 31 of 31