District/School Administration Administration
The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

Underperforming Schools (2000-2004 Cohort) - Status and Recommendations

Between the years of 2000 - 2004, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education reviewed 62 of the Commonwealth's lowest performing schools, and 27 were designated as "underperforming" by the Commissioner. Fifteen of the 27 schools have remained in underperforming status (now called "Commonwealth Priority Schools"). This memo presents recommendations on those 15 schools as well as an update on the status of the other 12 schools on which action has already been taken. The Board is scheduled to vote on the recommendations on the 15 schools at the November meeting.

Background

The state law on underperforming and chronically underperforming schools (M.G.L. c.69, § 1J), indicates that once a school is determined to be underperforming, it has two years from the date the Board approves the school's remedial plan during which the school is expected to demonstrate significant, steady improvement. In the absence of such improvement, the Board may declare the school to be "chronically underperforming." This is the point at which the school becomes a top priority for the Department's direct intervention and oversight. Similarly, an underperforming school may be removed from status if it demonstrates significant and sustained improvement.

In October 2006, the Board amended the Regulations on Underperforming Schools and School Districts to revise the criteria by which schools are identified as being in need of state intervention and the categorical term that identifies them. "Commonwealth Priority Schools" (CPS) are now defined as schools that the Commissioner has deemed underperforming within the meaning of the statute, where the school's NCLB status is reported as Corrective Action or Restructuring for students in the aggregate. (Based on preliminary 2007 results, we have a total of 102 schools meeting these criteria.) Within this group, some schools have extremely low levels of performance, and have exhibited little or no improvement over time, some with further decline. We propose to classify these schools as CPS "Priority 1" schools, within the meaning of "chronically underperforming schools" under the statute. The designation of a school as "Priority 1" indicates that the school needs significant state-supported intervention. Possible intervention strategies include the assignment of a school turn-around partner, the school's conversion to a Commonwealth Pilot School, or other substantial changes likely to lead to improvement.

Recommendations for Action on 15 Schools

The chart enclosed as Attachment 1    lists the 15 schools from the 2000-2004 cohort that have remained in CPS status. It indicates the timeframe in which the Department conducted Two-Year Follow-Up Reviews and the decisions made at that juncture for the 2000-2003 schools. The eight schools in the 2004 cohort participated in Two-Year Follow-Up Reviews conducted by EQA (Office of Educational Quality and Accountability) last spring. These reports are posted on the Department's website.

Department representatives have been providing support to school and district leaders as they implement improvement initiatives in their schools. We have analyzed the data on each school as well as the Implementation Support Reports, Two-Year Follow-Up Reports and, where applicable, Reading First Progress Monitoring Reports. One of the 15 schools is scheduled to be closed in June 2008 and I am not recommending further action on it. Based on our review, I am making recommendations on 14 schools, as follows:

1. No Longer Identified as Commonwealth Priority Schools:
   Preliminary 2007 AYP results indicate that these four schools have made AYP in both English Language Arts (ELA) and in Mathematics for students in the aggregate and for subgroups. Two of the schools no longer have NCLB status in either subject and have positive AYP findings; two remain Identified for Improvement in one subject, but have positive AYP findings in that subject for students in the aggregate and for subgroups. Although each school's improvement profile is different, significant gains in student performance have been made over time in all cases. The 2007 Preliminary AYP reports and summaries of progress for each of these schools are provided under Tab A.

   	Tab A - 1. Arlington Elementary School - Lawrence
   	Tab A - 2. Laurel Lake Elementary School - Fall River
   	Tab A - 3. Liberty Elementary School - Springfield
   	Tab A - 4. Washington Elementary School - Springfield

   
   

2. Remain in Commonwealth Priority School Status:
   These four schools continue to meet the criteria set out in the new regulations for identification as a Commonwealth Priority School or have made little improvement over time and have negative AYP findings for students in the aggregate. Each school's performance profile over time is different. In most cases, gains have not been consistent, suggesting that state oversight should continue. A short paragraph below sets out each school's performance profile. Department staff will engage district and school leaders in discussion over the next few weeks to determine what further support can be provided to these schools and to consider the opportunities offered by the Commonwealth Pilot Schools program. The 2007 Preliminary AYP reports and summaries of progress for each of these schools are provided under Tab B.

   	Tab B - 1. Lucy Stone Elementary School - Boston
   	Tab B - 2. Elihu Greenwood Elementary School - Boston
   	Tab B - 3. Michael J. Perkins Elementary School - Boston
   	Tab B - 4. James J. Sullivan Middle School - Lowell

   Note: The state performance target for ELA is 85.4; the state target of mathematics is 76.5.

   1. Lucy Stone Elementary School - Boston
      The Lucy Stone Elementary School did not make AYP in either subject for students in the aggregate or for any subgroup in 2007. Although the school does not currently have NCLB status in ELA and is Identified for Improvement in mathematics, declines in CPI scores across the board are concerning. The school's CPI in ELA is 56.7 with a performance rating of very low and a decline in the school's improvement rating. In mathematics, the CPI is 50.0; performance rating is very low and improvement rating is also reported as declined. The lack of positive movement is cause to retain the school in CPS status.

   2. Elihu Greenwood Elementary School - Boston
      The Elihu Greenwood Elementary School made AYP for students in the aggregate in ELA but not in mathematics. Although 2007 MCAS results show aggregate and subgroup gains in both subjects, the improvement in mathematics was not enough to meet the school's target. The Greenwood is Identified for Improvement in ELA and has no NCLB status in mathematics. The school's CPI in ELA is 59.2 with a performance rating of very low and on target in improvement. In mathematics, the CPI is 59.4; performance rating is very low and improvement rating is no change. Currently identified as one of the "Superintendent's Schools" in Boston, the Greenwood is receiving significant district support and oversight. In this school year, district leaders are focusing on creating and supporting a more collaborative learning environment in the school. The Greenwood Elementary School should be retained in CPS status.

   3. Michael Perkins Elementary School - Boston
      The Michael Perkins Elementary School did not make AYP for students in the aggregate or for any subgroups in ELA or in mathematics in 2007. The Perkins is Identified for Improvement for subgroups in ELA and has no NCLB status in mathematics. Significant declines in CPI across the board are concerning. The school's CPI in ELA is 61.6 with a performance rating of low and an improvement rating of declined. In mathematics, the CPI is 61.0 with a performance rating of low and an improvement rating of declined. Currently identified as one of the "Superintendent's Schools" in Boston, the Perkins is receiving significant district support and oversight. In this school year, district leaders are focusing on developing the capacity for instructional leadership at the school. The Perkins Elementary School should be retained in CPS status.

   4. James J. Sullivan Middle School - Lowell
      In 2007, the Sullivan Middle School made AYP in both subjects, demonstrating significant improvement gains in their Composite Proficiency Index (CPI) for all subgroups. In this school year, Sullivan Middle School remains identified for Restructuring for students in the aggregate. The school's CPI in ELA is 81.9 with a performance rating of high and an improvement rating of on target. In mathematics, the CPI is 67.6 with a performance rating of low and an improvement rating of above target. The school remains in CPS status, but prospects are good that a second consecutive year of positive results will remove the Sullivan Middle School from CPS status.

3. Commonwealth Priority Schools "Priority 1" Status:
   Preliminary 2007 AYP results in these five schools are not positive. In some cases, the schools are in Restructuring status in both subject areas and did not make AYP in 2007 in either subject for students in the aggregate or for subgroups. In all schools, CPI levels are significantly below the state average in both subjects. The 2007 Preliminary AYP reports and summaries of progress for each of these schools are provided under Tab C.

   	Tab C - 1. Arlington Middle School - Lawrence
   	Tab C - 2. John Lynch Middle School - Holyoke
   	Tab C - 3. Gerena Elementary School - Springfield
   	Tab C - 4. Homer Street Elementary School - Springfield
   	Tab C - 5. M. Marcus Kiley Middle School - Springfield
   	Tab C - 6. White Street Elementary School - Springfield

   
   

   1. Arlington Middle School - Lawrence
      At the Arlington Middle School, AYP was not achieved for students in the aggregate in either subject, but the Limited English Proficient subgroup met their improvement targets in both ELA and mathematics. The school currently has no NCLB status in ELA and is in Restructuring for subgroups in mathematics. The school has a CPI of 61.0 in ELA and a performance rating of low. In mathematics, the CPI is 38.3 and the performance rating is critically low. There is no change in the school's improvement ratings in either subject. The school was first identified in 2000; the lack of significant and sustained progress over such a long period of time is concerning. I am recommending a finding of CPS "Priority 1" status given the amount of time that has already been allowed since the original declaration of underperformance.

   2. John Lynch Middle School - Holyoke
      The John Lynch Middle School did not make AYP in either subject in the aggregate in 2007, but showed improvement for the Special Education subgroup, making AYP for this subgroup in both subjects with a 10.3 CPI point gain for Special Education students in mathematics. The school is in Restructuring for subgroups in ELA and is in Corrective Action for the aggregate in mathematics. The school's CPI in ELA is 62.9 with a performance rating of low and improvement has declined. The CPI in mathematics is 44.6; performance rating is very low and there is no change in improvement. The Lynch Middle School has also remained in CPS status over many years without making significant overall progress or sustained improvement over time. I am recommending a finding of CPS "Priority 1" status given the amount of time that has already been allowed since the original declaration of underperformance.

   3. Gerena Elementary School - Springfield
      The Gerena Elementary School did not make AYP in either ELA or mathematics in the aggregate or for any subgroups. The school is in Restructuring for both subjects. The CPI in ELA is 53.4 with a performance rating of very low and an improvement rating of declined. In mathematics, the school's CPI is 44.5; performance rating is very low; improvement rating of declined. Very substantial declines in both subjects for all student groups are alarming. The Gerena School is in need of significant intervention to interrupt the downward trend. CPS "Priority 1" status is recommended.

   4. Homer Street Elementary School - Springfield
      The Homer Street Elementary School did not make AYP in ELA for students in the aggregate in 2007, but showed good improvement in mathematics and made AYP in the aggregate in this subject. The school remains in Restructuring for both subjects in this school year. The school's CPI in ELA is 62.9 with a performance rating of low and an improvement rating of no change. In mathematics, the CPI is 52.7 with a performance rating of very low and an improvement rating of on target. As a CPS with "Priority 1" status, the Homer School will be in a position to receive significant support and build on some of the early successes noted in the summary.

   5. M. Marcus Kiley Middle School - Springfield
      The Kiley Middle School did not make AYP in either subject for any student group. The school is in Restructuring in both content areas. The CPI in ELA is 63.0, with a performance rating of low and an improvement rating of no change. In mathematics, the CPI is 39.0; performance rating is critically low; improvement rating is improved below target. The Kiley Middle School has made AYP in ELA only once in the last nine years; it has not made AYP in mathematics at all in that time span. The Kiley School is in need of significant intervention and redesign. CPS "Priority 1" status is recommended.

   6. White Street Elementary School - Springfield
      The White Street Elementary School did not make AYP in either subject for any student group. The school is in Restructuring in both content areas. The school's CPI in ELA is 55.5, with a performance rating of very low and an improvement rating of declined. In mathematics, the CPI is 46.1; performance rating is very low; improvement rating is no change. The White Street School has not made AYP in ELA once in the last nine years. The school's AYP history in mathematics is more varied, but AYP has not been achieved in the last three years. The White Street School is in need of significant intervention. CPS "Priority 1" status is recommended.

Juliane Dow and Lynda Foisy will be at the meeting to respond to any questions Board members may have concerning the status of these schools.

District and school leaders from Springfield, Lawrence, Lowell, Boston and Holyoke will be invited to attend the November Board meeting and will have the opportunity to respond to the Board's questions at that time.

Attachments:

• Attachment 1 - Chart, Schools Currently in Commonwealth Priority School (CPS) Status   
• Tab A - Summaries on 4 Schools (Recommendation: No Longer Identified as Commonwealth Priority Schools)
• Tab B - Summaries on 4 Schools (Recommendation: Remain in Commonwealth Priority School Status)
• Tab C - Summaries on 6 Schools (Recommendation: Designate as "Priority 1" Schools)
• Tab D - Progress Report on Schools Currently in CPS "Priority 1" Status   
• Tab E - Chart, 2007 Massachusetts Preliminary District and School Accountability Status Data