School Panel Review Report

Henry J. Robinson Middle School - Lowell 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 Robinson 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 Robinson 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 Robinson 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.

Robinson Middle School Profile

The Robinson Middle School is a grade 5 - 8 school, one of seven middle schools in the Lowell Public Schools with the same grade configuration, with the exception of two magnet schools that serve students in grades K - 8. In 1999, the Robinson had 771 students enrolled, of whom 76 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Forty-three percent of those enrolled had a first language other than English (FLNE), and 10 percent were identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). The school had a 90 percent attendance rate (students missed 18 days on average), two students dropped out, and 76 students were retained in grade. The school reported seven exclusions in 1998. According to the school, 18 percent of the students received one or more out-of-school suspensions in 1999; six percent received one or more in-school suspensions.

The principal has been the school leader for the past six years. According to the staff summary report, there are 93 staff members, including 54 teachers, 15 long-term substitutes, and 12 teacher aides.

MCAS Results

When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Robinson Middle School in 1998 had 63 percent of its eighth grade students scoring at the Failing performance level and 15 percent scoring at Proficient or Advanced. In 1999 the percent Failing increased to 66 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced decreased to nine percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 216 in 1998 to 214.3 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 34 percent in 1998 to 41 percent in 1999. In S&T 78 percent scored in Failing in 1998, increasing to 82 percent in 1999. In Math, however, the percentage in Failing declined in 1999, from 78 percent to 76 percent. The MCAS average scaled score increased from 1998 to 1999 in Math (from 211 to 212) but declined in ELA (from 226 to 223) and S&T (from 211 to 208).

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 improved from 1998 to 1999 in Math (from 202 to 204), results declined in ELA (from 215 to 208) and in S&T (from 202 to 201). SPED participation declined from 88 to 67 percent in ELA and from 88 to 87 percent in S&T, but increased from 88 to 90 percent in Math. Results for regular education students declined in all three content areas (from 229 to 228 in ELA; from 214 to 213 in Math; from 213 to 209 in S&T). Results for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students increased in ELA (from 202 to 215), and participation increased in ELA (from 45 to 81 percent). However, comparison results for LEP students in Math and S&T are not available due to too few students being tested in 1999. Results for males in ELA declined in 1999 (from 225 to 222), as well as for females (from 228 to 225). In Math results for females improved (from 209 to 211), and results for males declined (from 214 to 213). In S&T results for both groups showed decline in 1999 (from 212 to 210 for males; from 210 to 206 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 Robinson School does not have a sound plan for improving student performance. The panel found that the school's improvement plan, entitled the "Unified School Improvement Plan" (USIP), does not sufficiently address a number of areas of concern, most importantly the improvement of MCAS performance. In general, panelists found that planning efforts at the Robinson are not tied to data analysis and self-assessment. Although the plan highlights many of the school community's concerns and begins to address some of them, panelists found the initiatives to be insufficient.

Analysis

Although the USIP includes an MCAS action plan that highlights learning strands the school has chosen to target, the panel concluded from its onsite discussions that planning efforts at the Robinson are not tied to data analysis and self-assessment. During the onsite visit, panelists asked a number of questions regarding the USIP and in few cases received direct answers about how school planning efforts are linked to analysis of student performance. When panel members asked the principal in the school leadership meeting what he thought would improve MCAS performance, he could not be specific. A few hours later, however, at the meeting with district officials he presented a list of additional staff that he indicated would help improve student performance. The panel also found insufficient evidence from the written plan and onsite discussions with the leadership team that the school has adequately used assessment data to inform specific instructional practices.

Based on documentation and discussions with school leadership, the panel found that the school has failed to analyze other areas as well. For example, the principal stated in the school leadership meeting that he had not looked at changing the school schedule. Several panelists perceived that changing the schedule was an important strategy to consider because student performance has been very low in mathematics and science and because the school has identified English language proficiency as an issue for some students. In addition, panelists did not find evidence that the school has adequately assessed whether staff credentials and teaching assignments match student needs.

Planning

The panel concluded that because the school has not adequately tied improvement planning to analysis of student instructional needs, the school has inadequately addressed how it will improve student performance. The panel also concluded that although there was evidence that the school recognizes the importance of addressing several other areas of concern to the school community, such as high student absenteeism, low parent involvement, lack of cultural sensitivity to student diversity, and high staff turnover, the plans are insufficient. For example, some panelists perceived from their review of the USIP and onsite observations that the school does not have creative or strategic plans to improve attendance. These panel members did not find that sending letters home and making phone calls to parents are effective ways to address the problem of students missing on average 18 days of the school year. As another example, the panel perceived the school's plan for increasing parent involvement as incomplete, and its plan to use sign-in sheets for measuring parent involvement as inadequate.

The USIP states that one goal of the Robinson School is to increase staff understanding of cultural diversity (see Element 3 in the USIP on addressing school climate, pages 7a and 8), but there are no initiatives in the plan to address staff sensitivity to cultural diversity. The principal expressed his belief that it was important to address the high staff turnover rate, but there was no evidence that the school has a plan to meet this challenge. The school identified the high number of special needs students as an educational challenge, but panel members did not find clear goals or strategies regarding student inclusion.

The panel found that the USIP does not fully address the staff's professional development needs. The panel was provided with a list of a number of professional development opportunities available to Robinson staff, but panelists found no evidence of a comprehensive professional development plan or vision for all teachers. Although some professional development exists to help teachers improve student MCAS performance, particularly in mathematics, panelists perceived the offerings as limited.

Although student discipline is one area in which the panel found some evidence of the school linking planning and implementation to analysis of needs, panelists concluded that the school should now be examining and focusing resources on other areas in need of improvement. The school has established a student Behavior Modification and Planning Center and initiated the Green Chimneys Crisis Management program, which has trained all staff on handling the escalation of student misbehavior. The principal also made clear his strong intention to hire another assistant principal to address discipline, and his desire to have the district fund four at-risk specialists to help solve student emotional and behavioral problems. When asked by panelists how those four additional staff members would positively impact student outcomes, the principal could not explain how their addition would lead to improvements in teaching and learning. The panel perceived that the school climate has improved and therefore had concerns with the principal's perception of a need for more personnel and programs to address student behavior issues.

Finally, panel members found insufficient evidence that the Robinson has planned for ongoing monitoring and follow-up regarding implementation. For example, the USIP does not specify the personnel responsible for implementation and evaluation of various aspects of the plan. Timelines and lines of responsibility are not outlined in the plan. Although 78 percent of staff surveyed indicated that their curriculum is aligned with the state curriculum frameworks, panel members found no evidence that the principal monitors the curriculum implemented in the classrooms.

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 are not in place for the successful implementation of the improvement plan. Although the panel perceived the Robinson faculty to be an energetic and dedicated group that is a positive resource at the school, they concluded that the staff are in need of better direction and leadership. Panel members found that the school leadership lacks a clear vision of how to improve student achievement and that not all staff are aware of and support the USIP. The panel also found that while the district has provided some resources to all schools, there is inadequate focus by the district on the specific needs of the Robinson.

Leadership

The panel concluded that the leadership's focus is not on curriculum and teaching, but rather on school climate, organization, and management. In the school leadership meeting, the panel was left with the impression that the principal is not optimistic that student performance will improve. The principal stated in the letter he submitted prior to the review that he and his administrative staff cannot address important academic issues because of the amount of time they spend focused on solving emotional and behavioral issues among a large number of Robinson students. When asked in the school leadership meeting what he thought he could do to improve parent involvement, the principal made it clear to panel members that he does not see it as his role to creatively address such challenges. Panel members concluded that his perception of his role as one of building manager, and not instructional leader or visionary, would not lead to improved teaching and learning or higher student performance, given that he has not assigned the role of instructional leader to any other staff member.

Faculty

Based on staff interviews and discussions with the school leadership, panel members found little evidence of a sense of urgency among staff members to address student learning needs. The panel concluded that there is not sufficient buy-in to the improvement plan by staff members. Although the principal asserted in documentation and during the school leadership meeting that certain members of his staff had been part of the planning process, it appeared to panelists that one member of the district staff had written most of the USIP. During the school leadership meeting, the principal referred panelists' questions about the improvement plan to her. In addition, panelists found mixed evidence from staff interviews of staff members' awareness of the USIP. Although some faculty indicated that they were aware of the school improvement plan and that it was available to them, other staff were not aware of an improvement plan. It was apparent to the panel that the plan had essentially been assigned to the school.

District Support

When the panel met with district leadership, they learned that the district has provided resources to all schools to address their needs for updated materials, computer technology, and professional development. The panel also learned that all texts and materials at the Robinson have been replaced or updated in the last six years. The district also has established ongoing leadership academies, which take place every month for a full day. However, the panel found insufficient evidence that the district has identified the Robinson as a school with specific needs and worked in collaboration with the school leadership to meet those needs. Nearly 60 percent of the 58 teachers responding to the staff survey disagreed (30%) or were unsure (28%) that the school receives the assistance it needs from the district to support its improvement efforts. In the meeting with district leadership, the panel was left with the impression that the superintendent did not expect there to be any significant improvement in student performance this year. Panel members found little evidence that the process for linking the school improvement plan to the Unified District Improvement Plan was a collaborative one. Despite efforts at the district level to provide human and financial resources and support to all schools, the panel concluded that the district has not provided sufficient resources targeted to the Robinson school to improve their student performance.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, panel members concluded that although the Robinson Unified School Improvement Plan highlights many of the school community's concerns and begins to address some of them, the plan does not adequately address how the school will improve student performance. The panel also concluded that there are several barriers to the successful implementation of the improvement plan.

Letters to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from the Lowell Public Schools

letter one
letter two