School Panel Review Report

Thurgood Marshall Middle School - Lynn 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 Marshall 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 Marshall 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 Marshall 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 to assist an under-performing school, where needed, occurs at the next stage of the school review process.

Marshall Middle School Profile

The Thurgood Marshall Middle School is one of three middle schools in the Lynn Public Schools. In 1999, the school reported that 920 students were enrolled in grades 6-8, of whom 76 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 46 percent did not have English as their first language, and 25 percent were Limited English Proficient. The attendance rate reported in 1999 was 92 percent (average of 14 days absent). There were no dropouts that year, and three students were retained in grade. The school reported no student exclusions from 1996 to 1998. The out-of-school suspension rate for 1999 was 13 percent; there were no in-school suspensions reported.

The school reported 106 staff members, including one principal and one assistant principal. At the time of the panel review, the principal's position had not been permanently filled and the interim principal had been serving for less than two months. He had previously been the assistant principal of the school. The faculty and students are grouped into ten clusters.

MCAS Results

When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Marshall Middle School in 1998 had 63 percent of its eighth grade students scoring at the Failing performance level and 13 percent scoring at Proficient or Advanced. In 1999 the percent Failing increased to 65 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced decreased to nine percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 216 in 1998 to 215 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 Math from 80 percent in 1998 to 81 percent in 1999. In S&T 73 percent scored in Failing in 1998, increasing to 81 percent in 1999. In ELA, however, the percentage in Failing declined in 1999, from 37 percent to 34 percent. The MCAS average scaled score did not change from 1998 to 1999 in ELA (226) and Math (210), but declined in S&T (from 212 to 209).

No improvement trends are evident when the MCAS results are disaggregated by student sub-groups. Although the average scaled scores for Special Education (SPED) students improved from 1998 to 1999 in ELA (from 214 to 215) and Math (from 202 to 204), results declined in S&T (from 203 to 201), and SPED participation declined in all three content areas (from 93 to 84 percent in ELA; from 95 to 91 percent in Math; and from 95 to 91 percent in S&T). Results for regular education students did not change in ELA (229), and declined in Math (from 213 to 211) and S&T (from 215 to 211). Results for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students declined in ELA (from 222 to 216), while participation increased (from 36 to 40 percent). However, only half as many students were identified as LEP for the Math and S&T tests as were identified as LEP for the ELA test in 1999, so it is difficult to interpret the change in Math and S&T results and participation. Results for males in ELA improved slightly in 1999 (from 223 to 224), while results for females declined (from 231 to 229). In Math results for males did not change (209), and results for females declined (from 213 to 210). In S&T results for both groups showed decline in 1999 (from 211 to 209 for males; from 214 to 208 for females).

The school submitted local student level assessment data, but did not submit an aggregate report or 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?

Based on documentation submitted by the school, as well as onsite observations, interviews, and discussions with school leadership and faculty, panel members concluded that although there are some areas of concern, the Marshall School has a sound plan for improving student performance, the School Improvement Plan (SIP) for the 2000-01 school year. The panel found evidence that the school conducted a needs assessment and analyzed data as a basis for developing the plan. The panel also found that the plan responds to areas of need identified through the school's analysis, and has clear objectives and strategies.

Analysis

Panel members concluded that the school's staff have an understanding of their students' performance based on MCAS data. The school submitted, along with the SIP, a needs assessment that was based on multiple sources of data, including student enrollment, MCAS scores, class size, and results from teacher, student, and school council surveys. In the teacher interviews and in the group meetings, staff indicated that they discussed these data in developing the SIP.

However, the panel found insufficient evidence that the school regularly assesses classroom practice or the curriculum to inform school improvement planning. The current principal noted that there are issues with having so many teachers with limited teaching experience. On the staffing report submitted to the panel, the school stated that 58 out of 92 teachers have been teaching for five years or less and that eight teachers are in their first year teaching. The report also indicated that the school has four long-term substitutes, who are all in their first year teaching. There was, however, little evidence that the school has assessed the qualifications, knowledge and skills of all staff in a systematic way and formulated a plan to assist and support teachers based on their professional development needs.

Planning

The panel found that the SIP is clear by content area and is based on the issues the school has identified through the needs assessment and data analysis. In the interviews and meetings staff stated that the plan was developed over two professional development days during which the district presented the data and then staff worked in groups on different components of the plan. The panel agreed that the objectives and strategies included in the plan address student needs.

Some panel members were concerned, however, that the strategies are not clearly connected to classroom practice. They were therefore unsure about how the plan would impact teaching and learning. Panel members were also concerned that the objectives are not specific enough to be measurable and that there are not clear time frames for implementation of strategies or accomplishment of objectives. There was some evidence that the 1999-2000 SIP has been implemented, but the team did not find evidence of monitoring or evaluation of this year's plan.

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

The panel concluded that while some conditions are in place, several key conditions are not in place, the absence of which will impact the successful implementation of the improvement plan. The panel had strong concerns about the school leadership, the low staff morale and lack of optimism in the school, and the lack of district support.

Leadership

It is important to note that the panel was not able to assess the leadership at the school fully because at the time of the panel review, the principal's position had not been filled and the interim principal had been serving for less than two months. Based on the available evidence, however, the panel found that there is a lack of instructional leadership in the school. In classroom observations and in discussions with teachers and the school leadership team, the panel found minimal evidence of clear expectations for student and teacher performance being communicated to the staff or shared among the staff. The panel perceived that the interim principal supports his staff and facilitates communication among them, but does not often get involved in matters of teaching and learning, leaving that to the cluster leaders. In discussions it was noted that cluster leaders and lead teachers (academic department heads) are responsible for providing the instructional leadership, but it was also stated that they are not responsible for observing other teachers. Although the staff and principal reported that teachers meet by cluster and by department, and that cluster leaders meet as a group, the panel found that all these groups meet to discuss what they are covering in class or to discuss individual students. The panel found minimal evidence that this structure provides instructional leadership for staff.

Faculty

The panel generally found staff to have positive attitudes about their colleagues and their jobs but found limited evidence of positive teacher-student interaction. The panel was also very concerned about the staff's lack of optimism about improving student performance. The panel found that while the staff agree with the school's assessment of needs and the plans for improvement, many are not hopeful about achieving results. In their responses to the staff survey, in interviews, and in group meetings, teachers repeatedly cited students' backgrounds, lack of academic preparation and apathy, and the lack of parental involvement as the main reasons for not expecting improvement. There was little evidence that the staff or administration considers the effect of instructional quality on student motivation or achievement. Even though many teachers cited the Collins Writing program as a beneficial change, and anecdotally noted improvement already seen in student writing, in general the panel perceived the staff to be implementing the programs, but without much hope for improved student performance. It should be noted, however, that some panel members reported finding "pockets" of optimism and positive teacher-student interaction.

District Support

The panel found limited evidence of district support for the school's improvement efforts. Although there was some evidence of the district supporting the school's planning efforts, there was little evidence of the district providing the school with adequate resources to implement the plans.

There was evidence that the district guided the school in the development of the SIP. In the meeting with district administrators, the superintendent stated that the process used to develop the SIP at the Marshall was also implemented at the other schools in the district. He explained that the district provided information on the requirements of the Education Reform Act and Title I and also provided data reports. He also stated that the district will review the plan prior to its review by the school committee for approval.

The panel also found that the district provides some support for the implementation of some components of the plan. The superintendent explained that a district-wide curriculum was developed and distributed to schools. The school and the district identified the implementation of the Collins Writing program and the Connected Math program as district initiatives. The panel was concerned, however, that the school staff did not seem to be aware of a particular curriculum beyond that provided by these two programs and the textbooks they use. District administrators identified the need for curriculum implementation support. School and district staff discussed the mentoring program as providing support for new teachers. When discussing support for all teachers and principals, the district administrators most often talked about training and putting requirements in place for principals (e.g., three classroom visits per day, collect classroom assessments).

The panel did not, however, find evidence that the district provides the school with sufficient resources to provide adequate, appropriate, high quality programs and services. The panelists observed that many classrooms seem to be lacking basic supplies, including textbooks, science materials, classroom media (e.g., overhead projectors), and bilingual materials. Panel members were also concerned about the minimal number of books in the library and their lack of variety. School staff stated in the school leadership meeting that book orders were frozen last November and that even paper is limited. The panel was very concerned about the feasibility of implementing many of the strategies in the school's improvement plan given the current resources.

The panel found little evidence of how the district or the school will monitor improvement. Both school and district administrators and staff expressed an interest in being able to use assessment data to measure improvement at the student level (e.g., comparing a student's sixth grade math results to his/her results in seventh grade). There was no evidence, however, that this type of analysis had been done with local assessment data, and the superintendent stated that the district will not be continuing with the local assessment system (ITBS) it had been implementing.

Conclusion

The panel members concluded that the Marshall has a sound plan for improvement, but that certain conditions essential to the successful implementation of the plan are not in place. The likelihood that the plan will be successfully implemented is diminished as a result of these shortcomings.