School Panel Review Report

John J. Lynch Middle School - Holyoke 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 Lynch 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 Lynch 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 Lynch 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.

Lynch Middle School Profile

The John J. Lynch Middle School is one of three middle schools in the Holyoke Public Schools. The school reported 434 students enrolled in grades 6-8 in 1999, of whom 66 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 54 percent had a first language other than English, and 34 percent were identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). The attendance rate reported in 1999 was 88 percent (average of 21 days absent). There were no dropouts that year, and 45 students were retained in grade. The school reported no student exclusions in 1998, down from 96 exclusions in 1996. According to the school, 45 percent of the students received one or more out-of-school suspensions in 1999; 48 percent received one or more in-school suspensions.

The school reported 62 staff members. The principal has been at this school for 25 years, 22 years teaching and 3 years in administration. Appointed in August 1997, she served as the interim principal for nearly three years and was appointed principal just a few weeks prior to this panel visit. There are two assistant principals, one of whom is in an interim position. Each grade level, as well as the unified arts department, is organized as a cluster and one person serves as the cluster leader.

MCAS Results

When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Lynch Middle School in 1998 had 63 percent of its eighth grade students scoring at the Failing performance level and 11 percent scoring at Proficient or Advanced. In 1999 the percent Failing increased to 69 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced decreased to seven percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 215.3 in 1998 to 212.7 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 32 percent in 1998 to 43 percent in 1999. In S&T the percent Failing increased from 73 to 82 percent. In Math, however, the percentage in Failing declined in 1999, from 83 percent to 81 percent. The MCAS average scaled score dropped from 1998 to 1999 in ELA (from 226 to 222) and S&T (from 211 to 207), but stayed the same in Math (209).

No improvement trends are evident when the MCAS results are disaggregated by student sub-groups. The average scaled scores for regular education students did not change from 1998 to 1999 in ELA (231) and Math (213), and declined in S&T (from 217 to 212). Results for Special Education (SPED) students declined from 1998 to 1999 in all three content areas (from 217 to 210 in ELA; from 202 to 201 in Math; and from 203 to 200 in S&T). SPED participation declined in ELA (from 95 to 83 percent), but remained at 100 percent for both years in Math and S&T. Results for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students declined in ELA (from 212 to 208), but participation increased (from 60 to 88 percent). LEP results in Math increased (from 200 to 203) while S&T results declined (from 201 to 200). LEP participation in both Math and S&T dropped slightly in 1999 (from 100 to 97 percent). Results for males in ELA declined in 1999 (from 223 to 221), and results for females declined (from 228 to 224). In Math results for males decreased (from 210 to 208), but increased for females (from 208 to 209). In S&T results for both groups showed decline in 1999 (from 212 to 208 for males; from 211 to 207 for females).

Although the school submitted local assessment data reports, it did not submit an aggregate analysis of the data that shows any positive trends in student performance.

Panel Responses to Key Questions

Key Question #1: does the school have a sound plan for improving student performance?

The panel concluded, based on the evidence it reviewed, that the school does not have a sound plan for improvement. The panel reviewed the school's improvement plan for 1999-2000, in addition to the plans for 1997-98 and 1998-99, and found that the current year's plan is not based on analysis, and lacks specificity and prioritization in terms of teaching and learning. The panel also found little staff engagement with the plan. The plan does not seem to drive school decision making or classroom instruction.

Analysis

The panel found that the school does not have a clear understanding, based on data, of its strengths and weaknesses. There was little evidence that school staff regularly engage in analysis of student performance data. There was also minimal evidence that the school has assessed the extent to which the qualifications of staff and their classroom practices meet the needs of the students.

In the current plan and in last year's plan, there is one instructional strategy that includes the use of data: "Use the MCAS test results to diagnose student performance, identify areas of need, and establish programs." From discussions with teachers and school leadership it was not evident to the panel whether this strategy is ever implemented and which staff participate.

It did not appear from the plan, nor from discussion with the principal and staff about the development of the plan, that the school ever conducted a needs assessment as a basis for improvement planning.

Planning

The 1999-2000 School Improvement Plan (SIP) includes seven goals. Each goal is broken down into "program objectives," and each objective is further broken down into "instructional strategies." The panel found that the goals, objectives, and strategies are not explicitly based on data analysis and are not clearly connected to identified school needs. For example, in their responses to the staff survey conducted as part of the panel review process, in discussions during the on-site portion of the review, and in the school's written analysis of MCAS performance, staff identified as a major challenge the needs of English language learners. The SIP, however, does not address these needs.

In the panel's meeting with school and district leadership, the panel was informed that the goals in the SIP are determined by the district and are not specific to the school. The principal stated that the school is working from a plan that her predecessor developed and that each year the school council reviews the plan for the previous year, adding to or subtracting from it to develop the plan for the current year. She indicated that this year each cluster also had the opportunity to make suggestions. Other members of the leadership team stated that clusters developed their suggestions through discussion and review of the previous year's plan.

There was little evidence that the school evaluates the success of previous plans and uses that evaluation for future planning. The goals and objectives are the same in each of the three plans submitted, and most of the instructional strategies remain unchanged. The objectives in the current year's plan, as they are written, are not measurable, and the process to review the plan does not rely on any quantitative analysis. According to the documentation, the school is asked to submit to the school committee the current year's plan and a report on the previous year's plan, but this report does not specifically address how well each objective was met. The report on the 1998-99 plan includes MCAS data analysis and a description of three initiatives the school is implementing (Connected Mathematics, LINKS, Soar to Success), but does not specifically address the goals or objectives set out in the plan.

Panel members did not find evidence that the plan would directly impact teaching and learning. They found that the goals in the plan are very global, and that many of the "Instructional Strategies" listed in the plan do not pertain to instruction. The panel was concerned that the plan does not address classroom practice explicitly and does not identify specific skills or content for students.

In discussions with panel members, staff appeared to be informed and optimistic about some of the programs that are being implemented in the school. In their survey responses, over 70 percent of the staff indicated that they are well informed about the initiatives that are undertaken by the school leadership and staff to meet the state's improvement expectations. The panel concluded that while there are some initiatives in the school that have promise, these initiatives do not appear to be connected to the school improvement plan or based on a systematic assessment of improvements the school needs to make to serve its students better. There was strong evidence of a need for training on the development of a school improvement plan and a need for guidance through the planning process.

Key Question #2: Are the conditions in place for the successful implementation of the school's improvement plan?

The panel concluded that, in general, the conditions are not in place for the successful implementation of a school improvement plan. The panel found insufficient evidence of effective school and district leadership. Furthermore, although the staff seemed to the panel to be willing participants in school improvement, they did not seem to have a clear understanding of what to do.

Leadership

The panel found a lack of leadership at the school, evidenced by the school improvement plan and discussions with the principal and staff. In the leadership team meeting the principal expressed confidence in the abilities of the students and optimism about the school's faculty and administration, but there was little evidence of focus, analysis, or planning by the principal or other team members. In discussions with the principal and staff, the panel did not find any ownership of the plan. There was little initiative to change the improvement plan developed by the previous principal, yet little confidence expressed about the plan. The principal and staff did not articulate the goals or objectives of the plan, or discuss how it guides school decision-making or instruction. Although the leadership team reported that staff had the opportunity to suggest changes to the plan, there was little evidence of staff involvement in either data analysis or the development of the plan.

The panel was particularly concerned about the minimal evidence of instructional leadership in the school. It was not apparent to the panel that the expectations stated in the plan had been communicated to staff. At the leadership meeting, the panel was told that all teachers have a copy of the plan, but that it was not known if they used it. When asked by panelists, teachers were not able to identify what they were expected to do to implement the plan. From discussions with school leadership and staff, it appeared that the role of the principal is focused more on management than on instruction. There was little evidence of clear expectations for classroom instruction and student results, and no structure to support such expectations. In the interviews and group discussions, school staff identified the clusters as providing structure for informal collaboration, sharing, and mentoring, but there is no formal structure for mentoring of new teachers or support for veteran teachers. Cluster leaders do not have the responsibility of monitoring instruction or providing feedback or evaluation. There was little evidence that school staff meet to discuss the curriculum frameworks, student work, data, or school improvement. While the clusters have common planning time every day, the staff stated that this time is used to keep in touch with what other teachers are teaching. There was little evidence that the staff meet by content area. It appeared that the school's approach is to provide an atmosphere where teachers feel comfortable seeking help and can look to the clusters to provide it, but there was minimal evidence of school leadership clearly communicating expectations and actively engaging all teachers in assessing and improving classroom instruction.

It should be noted that while the panel found a lack of school leadership, the staff expressed the opposite view. On the survey, over 80 percent of the staff agreed (somewhat or strongly) that the principal provides effective leadership to guide and support staff efforts to improve the academic performance of the students.

Faculty

The panel saw minimal evidence that the staff considers the effect of instructional quality on student motivation or achievement. In the staff survey and in the interviews and discussions, the staff identified student apathy as a barrier to academic improvement, but they did not identify any plans or strategies, including new instructional approaches, to address the issue. The panel observed teachers at the school using various instructional practices, but in only a few of the classrooms did the students appear to be engaged in the lesson. Staff also stated that many students have difficulty expressing themselves orally or in writing, but there was little evidence in the classroom visits or in the student work displayed that students are given regular opportunities and expectations to practice these skills.

In their responses to the survey and in interviews, staff frequently identified a lack of parental involvement and support as a barrier to student achievement. Although the school has taken some steps to address this issue, some panel members were concerned about what they perceived to be a negative attitude about parents held by some staff members. Some panel members also voiced concern about what they found to be a mismatch of staff perceptions to reality. For example, in their responses to the survey, over 80 percent of the staff agreed that the school has clear goals for improving student performance and a well-defined plan for reaching those goals, but panel members found few staff members who could articulate those goals or discuss the plan for achieving them.

The panel was encouraged to find that teachers at the school seem willing to participate in school improvement. In both their responses to the survey and in the interviews, staff expressed positive attitudes about the programs being implemented in the school (e.g., Connected Mathematics, LINKS) and the school's staff and leadership. They expressed energy for and interest in professional development. There was evidence in discussions and classroom visits that some individuals were taking steps for improvement on their own. There was also evidence of attempts to engage with the community to improve parent involvement. Staff members realize that they don't have everything in place and seem open to suggestions for help. They were about evenly divided, however, as to whether the student performance on MCAS would improve in 2000. The panel concluded that instructional staff at the school are willing and interested but are not clear about what to focus on or how to proceed.

District Support

The panel was not convinced that the district provides a clear, coherent, and proactive approach to guide and support the school's efforts. Although district administrators discussed plans to focus on middle schools and rethink the development of school improvement plans, there was insufficient evidence of strong leadership or support.

From their examination of the School Improvement Plan and from discussions with school staff, the panel concluded that the district administrators have not actively supported and assisted the school in the development of an improvement plan. Although the district provided the goals for the SIP, there was minimal evidence that district leadership communicates specific expectations regarding academics, instruction, and school improvement, and little evidence of coordination or collaboration between the district and the school. While collaboration between the Transitional Bilingual Education director and the curriculum director has begun, the panel found little evidence of coordination among academic programs, in particular bilingual and regular education. District administrators identified the need to focus on English language learners, but there is no clear, common vision or policy in the district in regard to English language learners. There was little evidence that the district has a clear understanding of the school or a supportive relationship with it.

The panel reviewed the district's professional development plan for the current school year. The plan is organized around four priorities and includes several professional development initiatives for each priority. It was not clear based on the available evidence how the plan was developed. In the group discussions and interviews, staff talked about the difficulty of finding time to participate in professional development. Staff expressed an interest in more full-day professional development opportunities, indicating that if they had these they would feel more energized and more supported. The district has one professional development day per year. Staff stated that it is difficult to find time and energy for professional development after school or on Saturdays, and difficult to find substitute teachers to allow for professional development during the school day. Although the district has a plan for professional development, it does not address the availability of opportunities for teachers to participate.

The panel found some evidence, however, that the district is moving in the right direction. At the district leadership meeting, the superintendent stated that the district is engaged in a strategic planning process. He also stated that the district is now working with the League of Middle Schools and has engaged a coach to provide staff development to cluster leaders. He also noted that the district was at the point of examining the middle school model and considering moving toward either a K-8 model or a K-6, 7-8 model. It appeared, however, that questions about the future of the school building and the school organization are impeding the movement forward on other decisions such as those pertaining to technology and resources (e.g., whether to construct a language lab). District administrators identified the need to change the school improvement planning process and stated that staff will be reviewing the current SIP development model this summer. They discussed examining whether to incorporate the review of the previous year's plan and the plan for the following year into one document; they also discussed focusing on the relationship of the goals and objectives to test data. The panel concluded that although the district has identified some promising initiatives, there was not sufficient evidence that these initiatives would provide adequate direction and support to the school in a timely manner.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, the panel members concluded that the Lynch Middle School does not have a sound plan for improving student performance and that the conditions for successful implementation of a plan are not in place.