School Panel Review Report
Arlington School - Lawrence 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 Arlington 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:
Does the school have a sound plan for improving student performance? 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 Arlington 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 Arlington School should be deemed underperforming. 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 to assist an under-performing school, where needed, occurs at the next stage of the school review process.
Arlington School Profile
The Arlington is a K-8 school and one of eight schools in the Lawrence Public Schools serving students in grades six through eight. In 1999, the school reported 543 students in grades six through eight and a total enrollment of 1,212 students. Seventy-seven percent of the school's total student population was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Eighty-eight percent were students whose first language was not English (FLNE), and 37 percent were identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). The school had a 93 percent attendance rate, six students dropped out, and 29 students were retained in grade. The school reported 20 student exclusions in 1998, up from 16 exclusions in 1997. According to the school, 22 percent of the students received one or more out-of-school suspensions in 1999; six percent received one or more in-school suspensions.
There is one principal and four assistant principals at the Arlington. The principal was assigned to the school in August 1999 by the former superintendent. According to the staff summary report, there are 80 staff members serving grades 5-8, including 49 teachers, 6 long-term substitutes, and 10 teacher aides. The school does not have a parent-teacher organization.
MCAS Results
When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Arlington School in 1998 had 71 percent of its eighth grade students scoring in the Failing performance level and eight percent scoring in Proficient or Advanced. In 1999 the percent Failing increased to 76 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced decreased to four percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 212.3 in 1998 to 210.3 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 in the Failing performance level increased in ELA from 43 percent in 1998 to 49 percent in 1999. In S&T 88 percent scored in Failing in 1998, increasing to 94 percent in 1999. In Math, the percentage in Failing increased in 1999, from 82 percent to 86 percent. The MCAS average scaled score declined from 1998 to 1999 in ELA (from 222 to 221), Math (from 208 to 206), and S&T (from 207 to 204).
No improvement trends are evident when the MCAS results are disaggregated by sub-groups of students. Although the average scaled scores for Special Education (SPED) students maintained from 1998 to 1999 in Math (201) and S&T (202), results declined in ELA (from 210 to 206), and SPED participation increased in all three content areas (from 92 to 93 percent in ELA; from 92 to 96 percent in Math and in S&T). Results for regular education students declined in ELA (from 226 to 225), Math (from 210 to 208) and S&T (from 209 to 204). Comparison results are not available for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in ELA because too few students were tested in 1999. Results for LEP students declined in Math (from 205 to 202) and S&T (from 203 to 200), and participation decreased in all three content areas (from 58 to 26 percent in ELA; from 100 to 74 percent in Math and S&T). Results for females in ELA maintained in 1999 (226), while results for males declined (from 219 to 216). In Math results for males and females declined (from 207 to 205 for males; from 208 to 207 for females). In S&T results for both groups showed decline in 1999 (from 207 to 205 for males; from 207 to 203 for females).
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, interviews, and discussions with school leadership and faculty, panel members concluded that the Arlington School does not have a sound plan for improving student performance. The Arlington's 1999-2000 improvement plan (hereafter referred to as "the original plan"), submitted for review to the panel, was written by the former superintendent and not developed in collaboration with the school leadership or staff. The 2000-2001 improvement plan, submitted by the principal on the day of the review (hereafter referred to as "the draft plan"), begins to address some of the school's challenges, but it is not comprehensive or specific enough, especially with regard to improving student performance. The panel found minimal evidence that the school has used data analysis to inform its self-assessment and planning processes. The panel also identified a number of areas as inadequately addressed by the plans and the school leadership.
Analysis
The panel concluded that the Arlington does not have a clear understanding of student performance based on data analysis. The panel found that the analysis of low student MCAS performance in the original plan is not based on data but rather uses characteristics of the student population or community (e.g., number of low-income students, low parent involvement) to "explain" low performance. In addition, neither the original nor draft plan includes specific strategies for improving student outcomes that are clearly based on analysis of MCAS results or other data. The panel also found minimal evidence that either plan is based on analysis of student needs. Panel members concluded that the professional development proposed in the original plan does not target staff needs in order to improve student performance. They found that it was not well planned, it was unclear who decided what was offered and the reasons why, there was no continuity among offerings, and there was no plan for follow through. Also, panelists were concerned that there was no professional development plan for the large number of paraprofessionals and teaching aides (38 permanent substitutes) in the school. Finally, there was minimal evidence that the school has assessed the effect of the structure and schedule of the school day on teacher effectiveness and student learning.
Planning
Panel members concluded that the school has begun to address some issues it has identified as important challenges, but that the plans are inadequate in a number of areas. During the onsite visit, the staff and school leadership discussed the unsafe school climate, student misbehavior and absenteeism, low staff morale and attendance, and high staff turnover. The panel learned that the principal has begun to address some aspects of the school climate issue by working to improve school safety and developing an agreement with the city of Lawrence to create a secure staff parking lot. The panel also learned that the school is planning to adopt a specific discipline program and make changes in the discipline policy since, as staff indicated, current practices are inconsistent and tend to be punitive and short-term with inadequate student follow-up.
There was no evidence, however, that the school has clear objectives to address high student and staff absenteeism. In addition, the panel did not find evidence that the school has plans to address large class sizes. Faculty interviews indicated that the average class size is 25-30 students in grades one through eight and 27 students in grades four and eight. The panel perceived from faculty interviews that there is also some understanding that the school needs to target bilingual and Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, but there is no formal program or organized plan to address their needs. The panel found this issue to be a significant concern with 37 percent of the population identified as LEP and 88 percent identified as speaking a first language other than English.
Panel members found additional weaknesses in the school improvement plans. For example, neither the original nor draft plan includes measures to monitor attainment of goals or lays out lines of responsibility for carrying out the improvement plan. Also, panel members found insufficient evidence that an inclusionary model has been defined or implemented at the Arlington.
Based on evidence from faculty interviews and the school leadership meeting, the panel concluded that there are several areas in which the planning process also needs to be improved. One area in need of improvement is collaboration between school and district leadership, and between school leadership and staff, in the development of improvement plans. For example, the panel learned that the former superintendent wrote the original improvement plan without input from or collaboration with the school leadership. In addition, the panel found that the draft plan submitted by the principal was not developed collaboratively with input from staff, parents, and the school council. The panel found no evidence in the meeting with district leadership that there is a unified district plan or that the school improvement plan is aligned or linked to the school department's objectives.
Key Question #2: Are the conditions in place for the successful implementation of the school's improvement plan?
Based on interviews with staff and meetings with school and district leaders, as well as documentation submitted by the school and district, panel members concluded that the conditions necessary for the implementation of the school improvement plan are not in place. The panel concluded that the lack of vision and lack of support for instruction among the leadership, insufficient staff buy-in to the plan, and inadequate support from the district were conditions making the implementation of any improvement plan a significant challenge for the Arlington.
Leadership
The panel found that the principal exhibits high energy and has a strong belief in her students. The school benefits from the principal's knowledge of the community and her experience as a long-term educator in the district. In addition, the panel saw that the principal has a core group of staff dedicated to her. The panel found evidence, previously mentioned, that the principal has begun to address the quality of life for staff, as well as school climate and safety issues.
On the other hand, the panel found that the principal does not have a long-term vision for the school either for raising student performance or for inspiring creativity and love of learning in Arlington students. Panel members also found that the leadership team is not actively involved in supporting or supervising curriculum and instruction. From faculty interviews the panel learned that the principal and the four assistant principals do not visit individual classrooms on a regular basis. Panel members found from the documentation and faculty interviews that the school has not yet adapted to the middle school philosophy for grades six through eight. The panel concluded that it will be more difficult to meet student needs, and especially to increase student achievement, if the school does not address the overcrowding issue. The panel found no evidence of any mentoring program for new staff, especially instructional faculty. The lack of such a program was of particular concern to panelists when they learned in the school leadership meeting that 96 of 150 staff members were new to the Arlington this year. This high turnover rate is mirrored by high staff absenteeism (average of 27 staff absent each day according to school data), which the leadership has not addressed with sound strategies.
Faculty
The panel concluded that the school leadership does not have sufficient staff buy-in to the improvement plan. For example, only 27 percent of the 82 teachers responding to the staff survey strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement, "Our school principal provides effective leadership to guide and support staff efforts to improve the academic performance of our students." Only 29 percent agreed that the school has clear goals for improving student performance, and just 23 percent agreed that the Arlington has a well-defined plan for reaching student performance goals. Based on faculty interviews and the school leadership meeting, the panel found additional evidence that there is a significant problem with staff morale based on low trust of the school leadership. As mentioned previously, the panel found little evidence that staff were involved in the development of the school improvement plans.
District Support
Panelists concluded that the district is not currently providing the leadership and support necessary for the Arlington to successfully implement an improvement plan. The panel was concerned that there is no permanent superintendent for Lawrence Public Schools. In addition, the district does not have a unified district improvement plan with clear goals, objectives, and priorities for improving student achievement to which the Arlington School can tie its own improvement goals and objectives. The panel also was concerned that the principal did not choose her leadership team; they learned in the school leadership meeting that three of the four assistant principals were assigned to the school. Nearly 80 percent of the 82 teachers responding to the staff survey disagreed (52%) or were unsure (27%) that the school receives the assistance needed to support its improvement efforts. Finally, panel members concluded that the district's current staff hiring and transfer policy does not ensure that the Arlington will have the staff it needs to achieve its goals and thus impedes successful implementation of improvement plans at the school.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence, panel members concluded that the Arlington School does not have a sound plan to improve student performance and that the conditions are not in place for the successful implementation of the improvement plan.
last updated: June 12, 2000
|
State Government · State Services 
