School Panel Review Report

Matthew J. Kuss Middle School - Fall River 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 Kuss 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 Kuss 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 Kuss Middle 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.

Kuss Middle School Profile

The Kuss Middle School is one of four middle schools in the Fall River Public Schools. In 1999, the school reported 571 students enrolled in grades six through eight, of whom 65 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Forty-six percent of those enrolled were students whose first language was not English (FLNE); none of these students was identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). The school had an 88 percent attendance rate (students missed 22 days on average), one student dropped out, and 17 students were retained in grade. The school did not report any student exclusions in 1998. According to school data submitted to the Department,

24 percent of the students received one or more out-of-school suspensions in 1999. The school's data regarding in-school suspensions appeared to be incorrectly reported.

The school has had five principals over the past 10 years. During the 1999-2000 school year, the school has had an acting principal and one acting vice-principal. According to the staff summary report, there are 59 staff members, including 49 teachers.

MCAS Results

When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Kuss Middle School in 1998 had 61 percent of its eighth grade students scoring at the Failing performance level and nine percent scoring at Proficient or Advanced. In 1999 the percent Failing remained the same at 61 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced also maintained at nine percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 216.3 in 1998 to 215.7 in 1999.

The school's MCAS results did not show 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 27 percent in 1998 to 35 percent in 1999. In S&T 73 percent scored at the Failing level in 1998, increasing to 74 percent in 1999. In Math, however, the percentage Failing declined in 1999, from 82 percent to 73 percent. The MCAS average scaled score increased from 1998 to 1999 in Math (from 210 to 211), but declined in ELA (from 227 to 225) and in S&T (from 212 to 211).

No improvement trends are evident when the MCAS results are disaggregated by sub-groups of students. The average scaled scores for Special Education (SPED) students improved from 1998 to 1999 in all three content areas (from 208 to 210 in ELA; from 201 to 202 in Math; and from 201 to 204 in S&T). SPED participation declined in ELA (from 100 to 94 percent) and in S&T (from 100 to 97 percent), but maintained in Math (100 percent). Results for regular education students did not change in ELA (228) and in S&T (213), and increased in Math (from 210 to 213). Results for males in ELA improved slightly in 1999 (from 224 to 225), while results for females declined (from 230 to 226). In Math results for males and females increased (from 211 to 214 for males; from 208 to 210 for females). In S&T results for males stayed the same (213), and results for females declined in 1999 (from 211 to 210).

Panel Responses to Key Questions

Key Question #1:

does the school have a sound plan for improving student performance?

Based on documentation submitted by the school, as well as onsite observations, faculty interviews, and discussions with the school leadership, panel members concluded that the Kuss Middle School has a sound plan for improving student performance. The panel found that the school has used data analysis to inform its self-assessment and planning processes. As a result, the school improvement plan has several key strengths. At the same time, panel members identified areas that they believed are not fully addressed by the plan or by the school faculty and leadership.

Analysis

The panel found that the school's goal on improving student performance is tied to analysis of MCAS results. In particular, the improvement plan includes MCAS item analysis by content area, which the panel considered as evidence that the school has assessed areas of weakness in student performance. Panel members also found that the results of the analysis and the areas identified as in need of improvement have been communicated to staff.

The panel found that the school has analyzed other school data beyond MCAS results and that it has acknowledged additional areas in need of improvement, such as increasing attendance and reducing the number of student suspensions, fights, and retentions. On the other hand, the panel found that except in the area of reading the school has not thoroughly analyzed the match among staff certifications/credentials, teaching assignments, and student needs. Panel members also learned in the meeting with school and district leaders that the district had used consultants to conduct a city-wide data collection and analysis, which resulted in a community report card that includes different types of data. Panel members considered as a key ingredient to sound improvement planning the use of data at the school, district, and city levels.

Planning

Panel members concluded that the improvement plan has several key strengths but that there are some areas in need of improvement. The panel found that the plan is based on school and district assessments of student needs. The written plan also has clearly stated goals. In particular, the goal of improving student learning and achievement has specific objectives with anticipated, measurable outcomes. Several initiatives in the improvement plan have action plans that list implementation strategies, expected short- and long-term results, standards for success, benchmark assessments, timelines, personnel responsible, and resources needed.

Panelists also found what they considered to be positive components of the planning process. First, teachers and parents were included in the development of the school's improvement plan. Staff mentioned that a series of school planning meetings took place both before and after the school's identification for state review. Second, panelists learned during the meeting with school and district leaders that there was communication and coordination between the school and district in the improvement planning process. The Kuss improvement plan is based on the District Strategic Plan, and the school's goals are linked to the district's goals. During the meeting, district officials made clear that the planning process allows schools like the Kuss to have flexibility in prioritizing their goals.

Although there were several positive findings regarding the school's improvement plan and the planning process, panel members voiced some concerns regarding the plan. The panel found little evidence in either the plan or from discussions with staff and the leadership team that the school has explicitly identified which of its five goals is the primary focus for the next school year. Panel members also had strong concerns that the plan does not identify the current school climate as a significant impediment to improving student performance. Some panelists observed unengaged students who do not want to be at the school, which left them with the impression that unless the Kuss leadership and staff address this issue, they will not improve student performance.

The panel found that the school lacks clear plans and strategies to improve the performance of students with non-English-speaking parents. Although 46 percent of Kuss students come from families where the first language is not English, school records indicate that none of these students has been identified as Limited English Proficient. When meeting with the school leadership, panelists raised this discrepancy. Staff responded that some of these students are not fluent in English and struggle particularly with vocabulary they are not exposed to at home. In the meeting with school and district leaders, the district's director of bilingual programs stated that students identified as in need of a bilingual program attend another middle school in the district. He indicated, however, that this was the first time he had heard from the school that it needed testing or additional resources for Kuss students struggling with English.

Panel members agreed that while the school's leadership and staff are concerned that low student attendance and high absenteeism and discipline rates are significant school issues, the plan does not include clear, measurable objectives to address these challenges. The school's own analysis found that 38 percent of Kuss students were absent 21 or more days during the previous year. Problems of inconsistent consequences for student misbehavior and an unclear discipline policy also were mentioned in the school's analysis (see goal #5 in the improvement plan). Although several initiatives have been written into the plan to address these challenges (e.g., the future Student Services Center), the panel found that the strategies and provision for evaluation in this section of the plan are insufficient.

Panelists found that the school plan does not include important specifics (i.e., who, what, where, and when) on professional development, especially with regard to goal #1 in the plan (improving student learning and achievement). This lack of specifics on professional development concerned panelists, who found evidence in staff interviews and classroom observations that although the school's curriculum was recently aligned with the learning standards in the state frameworks, some teachers are not yet teaching to the learning standards.

Key Question #2:

Are the conditions in place for the successful implementation of the school's improvement plan?

Although several initiatives and conditions are in place to help the Kuss with implementing its improvement plan, the panel concluded based on interviews with staff and meetings with school and district leaders, as well as documentation submitted by the school and district that there are significant barriers to the successful implementation of the plan. The panel was concerned about the lack of stable leadership at the school, faculty over-emphasis on external conditions as reasons for low performance, and mixed evidence of staff support for the improvement plan. The panel found evidence that the district is beginning to support improvement efforts at the school, but they were concerned about whether oral commitments will be followed up.

Leadership

The panel found clear evidence from faculty interviews and meetings with school and district leaders that staff members, district leaders, and the school committee (represented by the mayor) recognize the need for placing a strong leader in the school. For example, recognizing the need for leadership on improvement planning during the current school year, the school placed one of the vice-principals in charge of planning. However, panelists did not believe they received clear indications during the meeting with school and district leaders that a principal would be appointed in time to provide the necessary leadership to implement the plan.

Although the superintendent stated that there would be a principal by July 1 with the support and assistance needed to run the school, and later indicated that the former principal who has been on leave was "ready and willing to return," the mayor stated that because of "contractual and legal issues" the new superintendent, who will be in place on July 1, may be involved in choosing the principal. If there is going to be new leadership at the school, panelists were told, then the school committee might have to consider a search committee. Panelists were assured that there would be parent and staff involvement in the committee. When asked how long a search would take in the event it was considered necessary, the mayor stated that he fully expected there would be a principal in place to begin the next school year. These statements by the superintendent and the mayor indicated to the panel clear intention and commitment on the part of both to have a leader in place by the beginning of the next school year, but some panelists were concerned that this was not soon enough.

Faculty

In general, panel members perceived that while Kuss faculty are a concerned, dedicated, and vocal group of teachers, they have inadequate support and over-emphasize external conditions as reasons for poor student performance. At the school leadership meeting, staff members strongly communicated an increasing sense of efficacy. In their collective response to the staff survey, faculty indicated that they need greater support from both school and district administrations. It was evident from staff members' statements and from their collective survey response that they want a permanent leader at the Kuss who will listen to their suggestions and perspectives, which are based on their first-hand knowledge of students' needs.

However, while panelists found staff optimistic that MCAS scores will improve, they were concerned that staff suggested in the staff survey, interviews, and the school leadership meeting that conditions external to the school, such as students' low socio-economic status and the lack of parent involvement, are the reasons for low performance. Panel members were concerned that staff might be too focused on what parents and students need to do differently, and too little focused on what teachers might consider changing in their classrooms and in the school.

Although panel members concluded that most of the staff have bought into the improvement plan, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that all staff agreed with the plan and the school's assessment of student needs. The panel found evidence that some staff had participated in a series of meetings to develop the improvement plan. The response to the staff survey was organized and collective, but non-union teaching staff were not part of that response according to staff comments made during the school leadership meeting. Panel members received an ambiguous reply from the leadership team as to why less than half the faculty (20 of 49 teachers) responded to the anonymous staff survey.

District Support

Panel members found that the district is beginning to support improvement efforts at the Kuss, but they were concerned that implementation of the school's plan would be hampered if the district does not follow through on its commitments. The district has provided support to Fall River schools by adopting school-based curriculum guides aligned with the state curriculum frameworks. When panelists asked if the district had spent the required minimum of $125 per teacher on professional development last year, the superintendent said that he thought the district had spent slightly above that figure and that they were considering raising it to $150 per teacher in the coming year. Specifically with regard to the Kuss, the district has approved the school's proposed renovations to change additional cafeteria space into the new Student Services Center.

The panel learned that the district has refocused its support to the Kuss Middle School as a result of this review. When meeting with the panel, district officials made several oral commitments to support the school's improvement plan with needed human and financial resources. The current superintendent stated that although line items for a reading specialist and a female security officer for the school had not been passed in the most recent district budget, he would ensure that these positions were paid for and in place for the next school year. The director of buildings and facilities said that the 2001 maintenance budget, which is not school-specific, would cover the Kuss's technological and electrical needs: panelists were told that the school was going to be rewired soon. The district also made an oral commitment to direct comprehensive professional development efforts in support of the school's improvement goals, an initiative that is now in the planning stage and that panel members believed to be an important step.

The district also has committed to supporting the Kuss with regard to instruction and curriculum as well as student emotional and behavioral issues. For example, panelists learned at the meeting with school and district leaders that the four district curriculum coordinators will be focusing on the middle schools during the next school year. The assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction stated that teaching strategies were a top priority at the district level and indicated that the district had already teamed up with outside consultants. She stated that the district office would be working with UMass-Dartmouth to design professional development courses to support district goals, including courses on classroom management. Panel members learned that the school and district will be enlisting the support of, and linking with, outside community organizations to address important issues such as students' needs for counseling.

Because panelists perceived that much of the district support would be subject to the approval of the new superintendent, several stated that it would be important for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to monitor and follow-up with the district and school during the 2000-2001 school year.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, panel members concluded that although there are areas of concern with regard to the school improvement plan the Kuss Middle School has a sound plan with clear goals, objectives, and strategies to address identified student needs. The panel also concluded, however, that there is mixed evidence that the conditions are in place for the successful implementation of the school improvement plan.