School Panel Review Follow-up Report

Thurgood Marshall Middle School, Lynn

October 30, 2000

Team Members: Peter Davies (Team Leader), Sheila Engle, Dean Elson, Susan McGilvary-Rivet

The Thurgood Marshall School, Lynn

The Thurgood Marshall School was one of eight urban middle schools referred for panel review in the Spring of 2000 as a result of critically low levels of student performance on State MCAS assessments in 1998 and 1999, and declining MCAS results from 1998-1999. The Panel Review was conducted in May 2000. Panel findings at the Marshall were mixed. Serious concerns identified were:

• lack of focus improving classroom instruction
• low morale and low expectations among staff regarding teaching and learning
• a shortfall in the supply of books, instructional materials, and library resources

On consideration of the panel findings, the Commissioner deferred action on determination of under-performance for a period of 90 days to permit school and district officials an opportunity to address the concerns identified by the review panel. A $25,000 school improvement grant was provided to support school improvement planning and professional development initiatives over the summer months.

In June, shortly after the Panel Review report was issued, the Superintendent appointed a new principal to lead the Thurgood Marshall School's improvement efforts. Under Principal Anita Rassias' leadership, a plan and school-wide budget for use of the $25,000 Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) grant was prepared. It called for faculty workshops through August and a school-wide workshop from August 14th through August 17th. Workshops met as planned, and a progress report was submitted to the Department, September 15, 2000.

A revised School Improvement Plan, developed through the staff planning sessions over the summer, was presented to the Follow-up Team on September 27. It contains clear objectives and procedures for monitoring the achievement of the plan through cluster and department meetings. Further work needs to be done in prioritizing the plan and setting detailed, realistic deadlines. Overall, however, the revised plan meets requirements.

The Scope of the Follow-up Process

The task of the Follow-up Team was to determine whether actions taken by school and district personnel over the past 90 days have remedied, to a significant extent, the deficiencies identified in the Panel Review Report and highlighted in the Commissioner's letter of June 12, 2000.

The Follow-up Team consisted of four members: one of the practitioners who served on the original panel, an educational consultant experienced in school performance reviews, and two additional staff from the Department's Accountability and Targeted Assistance unit. The Follow-up Team used the same protocol for its site visit that was used for the Panel Review, but focused specifically on the main concerns identified during the original Panel Review.

The Team reviewed the panel's original report, the Commissioner's letter, the school/district response, any action plans/budget for the $25,000 grant provided for additional planning and professional development over the summer, and a progress report on the school's action plan submitted to the Department by September 15, 2000. A preliminary Follow-up Team meeting was held to analyze this information and consider the action reportedly taken by the school over the summer. The Team visited the Marshall school on September 27, 2000 for a day of interviews with teachers, classroom visits, and meetings with school and district administrators.

Follow-up on Areas of Concern in Panel's Report

Lack of Focus on Improving Classroom Instruction

The new Principal is a former curriculum facilitator and assured the Team that she is personally committed to raising standards by providing instructional leadership.

The Principal and Vice Principal now conduct regular classrooms visits and keep simple records. Visits occur approximately three times per week, and many staff members noted the positive effect on morale. All staff interviewed had been visited at least once. Curriculum facilitators also conduct classroom visits and give useful feedback on improving instructional practice. The purpose of and protocol for classroom visits, however, is at present undefined. Results from the visits are not utilized in any systematic way for improvement planning or professional development purposes. Although informal comments on the visits are passed on to the relevant curriculum facilitator and lead teacher, at this point no direct feedback on instruction is provided to the teachers who are observed. The district and school leadership are aware of these deficiencies and of the need to further clarify the purpose of, and procedures for, classroom visits.

Five staff members are taking Research for Better Teaching (RBT) Training to learn how to better assess the effectiveness of their own instructional practice. There is, however, no formal plan to disseminate this training to the rest of the staff. Plans need to be developed to ensure this happens in a systematic way. The Marshall curriculum facilitator is currently completing training as an RBT trainer. Plans for the systemic dissemination of this training are being made at the district level.

A mentoring program is operational. Staff selected for mentoring receives training from the district. All new teachers are strongly encouraged to take part in the mentoring program. (If they elect not to do so, they must provide a written explanation of their reasons.) New teachers report that the mentoring program positively impacts their work. Exchange classroom visits are arranged for mentoring pairs, and there are meetings to discuss classroom issues. Mentors also provide teaching demonstrations. There are a series of study-group conferences for new teachers. Arrangements are in place to observe the member's teaching pre- and post-conference.

The role of the two curriculum facilitators is pivotal in fostering good classroom practice at the school. One facilitator provides support for math teachers, and the other works across the curriculum. As well as visiting classrooms and providing direct guidance on instructional methods, the curriculum facilitators offer input at department meetings and provide an interdisciplinary focus on raising standards. The facilitators have been instrumental in shifting the focus of department meetings and cluster meetings from mere procedural matters to discussing ways of improving instructional methods and curriculum delivery. Although there are subject leaders on staff, their role is primarily managerial as they are assigned full teaching schedules. It is the curriculum facilitators who provide instructional leadership.

During the August faculty workshops, groups of teachers reviewed the School Improvement Plan (SIP) relevant to their content areas, and set goals to be achieved by early October. At the workshops, teachers also reviewed new instructional materials and made arrangements to implement the new curriculum materials that are now in place in English Language Arts, Math, and Social Studies. Meetings were also held to ensure alignment with the State Curriculum frameworks and continuity of curriculum content as students progress through the school.

The Principal has reduced the number of non-certified staff, gearing recruitment toward certified staff. The Principal is also more closely reviewing the skills of candidates in regard to the needs of the school. There are plans to review the professional development program for those staff due for recertification, and the appropriate paperwork has been distributed to those affected.

A representative from the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE) visits the school weekly to help staff analyze students' work in the John Collins writing program and support the implementation of the Mosaic of Thought and the Connected Math Program (CMP) initiatives. All but one member of the Math faculty have been fully trained in the delivery of CMP, and many staff members have attended voluntary curriculum development workshops.

The staff is already reporting improvements in students' work, which they attribute to their training in Research for Better Teaching (RBT), Mosaic of Thought, and other new program initiatives. MCAS data is being reviewed to identify areas of weakness in math and science, and the scope of this review will be extended to form part of the monthly department meeting agenda.

Concerns about student work have become more focused on specific learning needs rather than generalizations. This year, pre- and post-tests for reading have been established for the first time. The school is also working with a PALMS specialist to identify and use pre- and post-test assessment materials for Math. This work was due for completion two weeks after the Follow-up Team's visit.

Low Morale and Low Expectations Among Staff Regarding Teaching and Learning

The new Principal, appointed in May 2000, has already raised morale within the school noticeably since the panel visit which preceded her appointment. At the follow-up visit, the Team found a sense of optimism among the staff, with many of expressing enthusiasm for the journey ahead and a sense of tenacity in pursuing what needs to be done. Staff members are both familiar with, and believe in, the School Improvement Plan.

Communications within the school are also greatly improved. For example, there are now, clearly defined procedures for ordering resources. Meetings are posted, agendas are prepared, and minutes are taken. Staff has volunteered to arrange their required professional development time in order to facilitate after-school department meetings. Cluster teams meet daily. There still needs to be greater clarity, however, regarding the roles of the curriculum facilitator and subject leader at department meetings. It needs to be clear who is providing the instructional leadership, who establishes the agenda, and who chairs the discussion.

The Principal often attends department and cluster meetings, and there is a regular leadership meeting. These regularly scheduled meetings should provide a coherent framework for managing the school. However, the outcomes of meetings should be recorded in writing. In this way, decisions can be clearly and consistently communicated to the staff. Moreover, it is important that these procedures are properly documented, so that strong communications and effective actions are systematized at all levels of management.

The Follow-up Team was welcomed in a positive manner by the Principal and staff, and the Team noted how the tone of the school had greatly improved since the original visit. The positive demeanor of staff and students was noted. Students generally move quietly about the school and are respectful of each other. Student behavior within classrooms is generally acceptable, although in two out of sixteen classrooms visited, there was some disruptive behavior which impeded learning. Strategies for dealing with such behavior need to be reviewed and further developed. There was a very strong staff presence around the building, both before and after each class, and at the beginning and end of the day. Relationships between staff and students appeared friendly and supportive.

There is optimism among the staff about improving student performance through the adoption of curriculum materials and by sharing information about good instructional practice. There is also some diffidence, however, regarding sharing good practice, especially among less established staff. Teachers will need to be courageous in opening their classroom doors, and the leadership team will need to support initiatives to disseminate good instructional practices that are at the core of raising standards. The curriculum facilitators are already helping to establish good practice, and they need to be more proactive in this role. It is not enough to offer support. In many cases teachers need to be shown a better, more effective instructional method.

The Superintendent is very positive about the appointment of the new Principal and expressed strong commitment to supporting her. A member of the District Administration Team is responsible for monitoring the improvements at Thurgood Marshall. Teacher logs are checked to ensure that classroom visits that are required by the District are taking place. The District is taking steps to monitor the Principal's evaluations of writing folders, and the Superintendent receives copies of teacher evaluations in the second year of the John Collins Writing Program. This should enable more effective monitoring at the district level.

Shortfall in the Supply of Books, Instructional Materials, and Library Resources

The shortfall in the supply of paper has been fully addressed. Overhead projectors and graphic calculators have now been requisitioned and are, in most cases, in place.

Textbook requisitions for every student in every class have been filled. ESL and bilingual materials are appropriate and sufficient in science but inconsistent across grades in math and social studies. There was some concern from the Team about the provision of services for students with limited English proficiency. (Lynn had a significant increase in the percentage of pupils with limited English skills in the 1999-2000 school year.) For example, the extensive CMP materials were almost all in place at the time of the visit, with five books out of seven now on site. However, it was noted that these materials were only available in English.

The science budget for the current school year has enabled the school to replace fifteen science work stations. Changes in curriculum guidelines, however, have resulted in some inappropriate acquisition of resources.

The library has requisitioned materials to the value of $5,000; however, these will not sufficiently meet the needs of the school. The stocking of the library with appropriate books and multimedia resources needs further review.

The school building is not in an adequate state of repair. Paint is peeling and falling off walls, tiles are missing from flooring, and at the time of the follow-up visit, there was a broken window with jagged glass on the front of the building. In addition, some ceilings are in disrepair, light sensors malfunction in some classrooms, computers cannot be used on the third floor because of wiring problems, and the basement is generally substandard as a working area.

Conclusion

Overall, the Team's conclusion was that good progress had been made in addressing the issues raised during the Panel Review. Significant new improvement initiatives were undertaken this summer. The school needs to formalize those plans and develop the infrastructure, policies, and procedures to ensure that the direction and momentum of their improvement efforts are sustained over time. The Team is confident that with continuing strong leadership at the school and district level, prospects for improvement at the Marshall School are good.