School Panel Review Report

Dearborn Middle School - Boston Public Schools

The purpose of the School Panel Review Process is to assist the Commissioner of Education in determining whether State intervention is needed to guide improvement efforts in schools where students' MCAS performance is critically low and no trend toward improved student performance is evident from MCAS data. The Dearborn Middle School was one of eight Massachusetts middle schools meeting this criteria that were selected for panel reviews in May, 2000.

The review panel's charge was to analyze data and written information on the school's performance and improvement efforts (see Appendix A), visit the school, and meet with school and district officials in order to advise the Commissioner on the answers to the following two key questions:

1. Does the school have a sound plan for improving student performance?
2. Are the conditions in place for the successful implementation of the school's improvement plan?

The panel's responses to the two key questions which defined the scope of their review are set forth in this report. These findings and conclusions are the product of the panel's analysis, discussion, and observation, based on the evidence available to them. A list of panel members who participated in the Dearborn School review is provided in Appendix B. A detailed schedule of the panel's activities is provided in Appendix C.

The panel's findings and conclusions on the two key questions will be forwarded to the Commissioner of Education for consideration, together with school performance data, in determining whether the Dearborn School is deemed under-performing. The panel was not asked to formulate a sound plan for school improvement where such a plan does not presently exist, or to recommend a course of action to create the conditions for successful implementation of sound improvement strategies where such conditions at present do not appear to exist. Diagnostic and/or prescriptive intervention, where needed to assist an under-performing school, occurs at the next stage of the school review process.

Dearborn Middle School Profile

The Dearborn Middle School is one of 27 schools in the Boston Public Schools serving middle school grades. In 1999 the school reported 484 students enrolled in grades 6-8, of whom 89 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 51 percent had a first language other than English, and 42 percent were identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). The district's only middle school Cape Verdean bilingual program is housed at the Dearborn Middle School. The attendance rate reported in 1999 was 94 percent (average of 12 days absent), the dropout rate was 2.1 percent, and 16 students were retained in grade. The school reported no student exclusions in 1998. According to the school, one student received one or more out-of-school suspensions in 1999; no students received in-school suspensions.

The school reported 60 staff members, including one principal and one assistant principal. The principal has been the administrator of this school for eight years.

MCAS Results

When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Dearborn Middle School in 1998 had 75 percent of its eighth grade students scoring at the Failing performance level and five percent scoring at Proficient or Advanced. In 1999 the percent Failing increased to 80 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced decreased to four percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 210.7 in 1998 to 209.7 in 1999.

The school's MCAS results did not show any significant improvement from 1998 to 1999 in any of the three content areas (History and Social Science is not included as it was not administered in 1998). The percentage of students scoring at the Failing performance level increased in ELA from 46 percent in 1998 to 54 percent in 1999. In S&T the percentage Failing increased from 90 to 96 percent. In Math the percentage Failing remained unchanged at 89 percent. The MCAS average scaled score declined from 1998 to 1999 in ELA (from 221 to 220) and S&T (from 205 to 203), but stayed the same in Math (206).

No improvement trends are evident when the MCAS results are disaggregated by student sub-groups. In both 1998 and 1999 more than half of the school's eighth grade students were identified as either Special Education (SPED) or Limited English Proficient (LEP). The average scaled scores for regular education students improved in ELA (from 224 to 226), maintained in Math (208), and declined in S&T (form 207 to 204). Participation for regular education students remained at 100 percent for both years in Math and S&T, but decreased in ELA from 100 percent in 1998 to 90 percent in 1999. SPED results declined in ELA (from 213 to 209) and S&T (from 201 to 200), and maintained in Math (201). SPED participation increased in 1999 in all three content areas (from 49 to 80 percent in ELA; from 72 to 100 percent in Math and S&T). Comparison results are not available for LEP students because too few students were tested. Participation for LEP students increased slightly in ELA (from 19 to 20 percent), but dropped in Math and S&T from 19 to zero percent. Because gender was not reported for 32 percent of the students in 1999, it is not possible to analyze improvement by gender.

The school submitted a report of local assessment data that shows mixed results in improvement of student performance.

Panel Responses to Key Questions

Key Question #1:

Based on data and documentation submitted by the school, on-site observations, interviews, and discussions with school leadership and faculty, the panel found a sound, collaboratively-developed plan-with clear and specific objectives and priorities for improving student performance-in the early stages of implementation at the Dearborn Middle School.

Analysis

In meetings with school and district staff, the panel learned that following its identification by the Boston Public Schools Accountability System last May as one of thirty schools scheduled for In-Depth Review in September 1999, the Dearborn Middle School conducted a rigorous assessment of its student needs. The panel found that the product of that self-assessment, the school's "Portfolio", demonstrated a clear understanding of student performance, grounded in a solid analysis of student assessment results in which much of the staff actively participated.

Planning

The panel also reviewed the "Goals for Continuous Improvement" documents submitted by the school for the past two years, which outlined specific goals, the assessments to be used, actions to be taken, and methods of measuring progress toward each of the goals. The panel considered the Portfolio and the Goals for Continuous Improvement together as constituting the school improvement plan. Panel members agreed that the link between the two documents should be more explicitly articulated.

During its visit to the school, the panel found teachers conversant and very specific about how the data were used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their students with regard to particular content areas and skills. The panel was impressed by a cohesiveness among staff on the direction for classroom practice based on their data analysis. There was also evidence of ongoing training in the use of such analysis to design programs to address particular learning needs in the classroom, and ongoing use of data analysis to inform classroom practice. Teachers at the Dearborn School reported:

• beginning to address specific areas of identified student weakness in their classes
• participating in workshops and analyzing data in clusters
• using writing prompts in all of the content areas
• developing classroom rubrics aligned with MCAS

The leadership team reported that based on its analysis of multiple measures of student performance, the school hired a math specialist and a literacy coach. All teachers have been trained in the Llife Literacy Program; and professional development is offered on Thursdays in Turning Points (a program of the Center for Collaborative Education).

As another example of the plan responding to identified needs, it addresses staff concerns regarding parent involvement. Staff surveys and interviews indicated the need for more parental support to reinforce improvement efforts on an individual basis at home. Essential goal #6 of the Portfolio is to get more parents involved, and the school is actively trying to engage parents. For example, for a recent meeting, each parent was called and personally invited to attend.

The panel found evidence that the plan reflects consideration by the school of the structure and schedule of the school day. The school reported a change in the schedule to allow for more common planning time. A Transition Program has been started in the sixth grade to address the academic challenges of moving from elementary to middle school. The school has also instituted Project Promise, through which bilingual and regular education students participate in "an innovative approach to learning that incorporates 90 minutes more instruction per day and infuses reading, writing, mathematics and critical thinking skills into all subjects." According to the Portfolio, the school is considering restructuring the program in order to include special education students and staff.

Key Question#2:

Panel members concluded that the conditions are in place for the successful implementation of the improvement plan. The school's leadership team provides direction and support for the school's plans. The staff expressed agreement about the initiatives planned and are optimistic about achieving results. The panel also found evidence of district support for the school's planning and improvement efforts.

Leadership

The Dearborn School is organized in clusters, and has a leadership team that includes the principal, assistant principal, cluster leaders and others. The panel found evidence that the team works together on analysis of student performance and on the plans for improving student academic performance. The panel agreed that school leaders were clear and convincing about the reasonableness and appropriateness of their recent initiatives and existing plans. The panel found the principal more a supporter and facilitator of improvement projects than the initiator of change. More direct leadership for improvement is provided by other staff members, and the panel concluded that the team as a whole is well-balanced and effective.

The school leadership team demonstrated certainty of purpose, energy and confidence that the school can help its students improve their performance. The principal emphasized how hard leadership and staff are working on improving student performance. The faculty and staff also articulated a shared vision, and a common understanding of, and agreement with, the expectations, priorities and plans for school improvement. The high level of staff involvement in analysis, planning, and implementation includes three hours of common planning time on Friday afternoons. The cluster structure and the clear lines of communication among staff promote a shared sense of responsibility and leadership at the school.

Faculty

The panel was convinced that the faculty and staff are willing participants in the school's reform and improvement initiatives. A general optimism that current efforts would lead to the improvement of their students' academic performance over time was expressed in the staff surveys and in interviews and observations during the panel's on-site visit. The candor of the staff and a spirited exchange of differences among them during the focus group indicated that productive communication and discussion are a familiar part of the professional culture at the school.

District Support

The panel found that the district provides guidance and support in the school's improvement planning process. With the In-Depth Review (IDR) process, which began at the Dearborn in September 1999, the district guided the school through self-assessment and planning. When the panel met with them, district administrators reported that this multi-year process includes monitoring of implementation and results.

The panel was concerned, however, about the level of resources provided by the district to help the school meet the educational needs of its students. In particular, the panel found that the combination of the special needs programs located in the school (special education, bilingual education, and Learning Adaptive Behaviors), the school's willingness to accept students needing these programs, and the district's placement policy, creates a student population with a high level of need. Over half of the eighth grade students at the Dearborn School were designated as either special needs or Limited English Proficient on the 1999 MCAS test. According to district officials and school administrators during a meeting at the district office, the district is providing support for bilingual and special education programs in the form of technical assistance and professional development, with a resource person in each of these areas assigned to the school. However, the panel could not determine from the evidence the adequacy of the human and financial resources provided to support the school's improvement initiatives, given the expanded needs of the student population they are serving.

Conclusion

Panel members agreed that the plans and initiatives in place are sound and based on student needs identified through self-assessment and data analysis. The panel concluded that the objectives and strategies included in the plan address those student needs.

The school's identification for In-Depth Review by Boston's district Accountability System suggests that these will be, over time, a solid involvement and investment in the improvement efforts by the district. This sustained support, coupled with the buy-in by the school's principal and instructional leadership team to the implementation of a sound improvement plan, and their positive outlook on the possibility of ultimate success in improving student performance, increase the likelihood that the plan will be successfully implemented.