School Panel Review Report

Roosevelt Junior High School - New Bedford 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 Roosevelt Junior High 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 Roosevelt 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 Roosevelt 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.

Roosevelt School Profile

The Roosevelt is one of three junior high schools in New Bedford Public Schools serving students in grades seven and eight. The school is in transition to become a middle school, with grades six through eight, and to be housed in a new facility as of September 2001. In 1999 the school had 610 students enrolled, of whom 71 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Thirty-three percent of those enrolled were students whose first language was not English (FLNE), and 12 percent were identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP). The school had a 91 percent attendance rate (students missed 16 days on average), 21 students dropped out, and 27 students were retained in grade. The school reported no student exclusions from 1996 to 1998. According to school data submitted to the Department, 30 percent of the students received one or more out-of-school suspensions in 1999 and six percent received one or more in-school suspensions.

There is one principal and one assistant principal at the Roosevelt. According to the staff summary report, there are 86 staff members, including 57 teachers and 19 teacher aides.

MCAS Results

Corrections are being made to the Roosevelt's 1999 MCAS data by the test contractor. The updated data are currently not available. The results will improve slightly, but overall the school still showed decline in 1999.

When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Roosevelt Junior High School in 1998 had 62 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 67 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced decreased to eight percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 215.7 in 1998 to 213.7 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 79 percent in 1998 to 87 percent in 1999. In S&T 75 percent scored at the Failing level in 1998, increasing to 83 percent in 1999. In ELA, however, the percentage at the Failing level declined in 1999, from 32 percent to 31 percent. The MCAS average scaled score increased from 1998 to 1999 in ELA (from 226 to 227), but declined in Math (from 210 to 207) and in S&T (from 211 to 207).

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 ELA (from 214 to 216), results declined in Math (from 202 to 200) and in S&T (from 203 to 202), and SPED participation declined in all three content areas (from 90 to 86 percent in ELA; from 94 to 80 percent in Math; and from 94 to 81 percent in S&T). Results for regular education students did not change in ELA (229), and declined in Math (from 212 to 208) and ST (from 213 to 208). Results for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students declined in Math (from 205 to 201) and in S&T (from 205 to 203), while participation increased in these two content areas (from 58 to 67 percent). Comparison results for LEP students in ELA are not available due to too few students tested in 1999. Results for females in ELA improved slightly in 1999 (from 227 to 230), while results for males declined (from 225 to 224). In Math results for females did not change (207), and results for males declined (from 212 to 208). In S&T results for both groups showed decline in 1999 (from 213 to 209 for males; from 209 to 207 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, faculty interviews, and discussions with the school leadership, panel members concluded that in general the Roosevelt Junior High School has a sound plan for improving student performance. The panel's observations and discussions with Roosevelt leadership provided evidence that, as a result of its item analysis of MCAS results, the school is clearly focusing on writing across the curriculum as a key strategy for improving student performance. In addition, panelists found that the school plan includes initiatives for tutoring and remediation, as well as other strategies that are currently being implemented in the school. At the same time, however, the panel perceived some weaknesses with regard to the school's analysis and its improvement plan.

Analysis

Panel members found supporting evidence in the documentation submitted by the school that it had completed item analysis of the 1998 MCAS results in all content areas. Panel members also found that the district's curriculum coordinators had completed item analysis of the Roosevelt's 1999 MCAS results in English Language Arts, Science & Technology, and History and Social Science. There was no evidence of item analysis of the school's Mathematics results.

There was evidence that the school, with the help of district curriculum coordinators, has assessed the curriculum to ensure alignment with the state frameworks. For example, panel members learned in the interview with the district's science coordinator that he has been in Roosevelt classrooms working with teachers on alignment of the curriculum to the learning standards in the frameworks. On the other hand, panel members found insufficient evidence in the improvement plan and in discussions with the school leadership that the school has assessed classroom practice to determine the extent to which the curriculum is actually being implemented.

The panel found evidence that the school recognizes the inadequacy of support for teachers in the classroom, but it has not assessed the extent to which teachers' classroom practices meet the needs of students. The panel learned in the school leadership meeting that the principal is frequently tied up with building and planning issues around the middle school transition, and thus he rarely is able to visit classrooms and conduct observations. In documentation and during the school leadership meeting, the principal stated that he has requested from the district a department chairperson or assistant principal for curriculum and instruction to provide oversight and improve the instruction in Roosevelt classrooms. In its documentation, the school states that its need for additional administrative personnel will be addressed in the plans for organizing the new middle school, which is due to open in September 2001.

Planning

The panel learned during the school leadership meeting that the school has focused on writing across the curriculum this year because its analysis showed that many Roosevelt students had either not attempted to answer or scored poorly on open-ended MCAS questions. The improvement plan includes an MCAS Action Plan that highlights specific efforts, observed by panel members during the onsite visit, to address low student performance in reading and writing. Two of these initiatives are the teaching of LINKS strategies and writing templates in all classrooms to help students read and write effectively, and instruction in the Communication Skills curriculum, which provides support to increase students' reading and test-taking skills. Panel members found that the writing rubric was posted in some of the classrooms they observed, although it was not translated in bilingual classrooms. Because panel members found that the school has not analyzed its specific weaknesses in mathematics, and made clear plans to address them with regard to classroom instruction, they were concerned that the school is not adequately addressing its very low performance in mathematics.

The school has used Title I and other resources to establish and expand remedial programs in order to respond to its analysis that many students do not arrive at the Roosevelt at grade level in reading. Indeed, one-third of the teachers responding to the staff survey indicated that the school's lack of remedial programs inhibits student performance. From documentation and during the onsite visit, panelists learned that teachers refer students to the Comprehensive Competencies Program (CCP) Center. The CCP Center uses an alternative, competency-based, individualized approach with computers and appropriate materials to help support students of various abilities. However, more than one panel member observed that the computers were not being used by students during the onsite visit, and there was some concern that the additional 45 minutes at the end of the school day for CCP tutoring/remediation is likely to be insufficient for improving student performance. In addition to the CCP Center, the improvement plan discusses a modular technology education program to be established at the new Roosevelt Middle School, which will have a hands-on resource center for mathematics, science, technology, reading, and writing. According to the plan, the information in the modules will be aligned with the curriculum frameworks, and the school anticipates that the program will lend additional support to students in MCAS preparation.

On the other hand, panel members found insufficient evidence that the school has planned specific actions to address some identified needs. Panelists perceived that the plan does not go far enough in terms of specific strategies that fully address the instructional needs of at-risk students. For example, 21 of the 42 faculty members responding to the staff survey indicated that the school lacks English as a Second Language (ESL) services. Although the school has identified the need for a specialized English class for former bilingual students who need ESL support services (see page 13 in "Impediments" section of plan), the panel found no evidence that specific plans have been made to address this issue for the next school year or beyond. In addition, the panel concluded that there is no plan to address the issue of transient student populations despite the school's analysis that there is a high student transfer rate (both into and out of the Roosevelt) and its assertion that the issue is a significant challenge.

Panel members also found evidence in the improvement plan that the school has developed several programs and services, with the support of the district in some cases, to help meet the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of its students. For example, the panel learned during the school leadership meeting that the health facilitator conducts broad assessments of school needs. In addition, the school has had a full-time social worker and Student Assistance Program (SAP) facilitator since 1993 to help students and their families deal with personal issues. Panel members also found evidence that programs are developed at the school in response to unanticipated needs. For instance, the school discussed in the documentation that it provided bereavement counseling for a small group of students whose parents or other close family members died last year. Panel members did not find evidence, however, that the school's fairly large number of programs and services are well coordinated so as to meet student needs effectively or are evaluated to determine whether they lead to improved student outcomes.

The panel found that while the school's improvement plan includes some understanding of objectives and priorities tied to initiatives and strategies, the written plan does not clearly state and prioritize goals, nor does it include objectives, strategies, and timelines, or name the personnel responsible for carrying out various aspects of the plan. For example, the panel learned in school and district meetings that there are plans already in place for collaboration with UMass-Dartmouth and Bristol Community College for ongoing staff professional development, but there was no evidence of an implementation timeline for professional development activities. Despite the weaknesses the panel found with the written document, the panel concluded that the school has plans to address identified student and staff needs.

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, there was mixed evidence that the conditions are in place to successfully implement the Roosevelt improvement plan. Although all panel members agreed that there is evidence of positive leadership at the Roosevelt, some were concerned as to whether the school would be able to implement a plan that was not effectively communicated by the leadership to staff. In addition, panel members were concerned that there is insufficient buy-in to the plan by all staff and that there is currently inadequate classroom supervision. Finally, panelists found that while the district has been recently providing support specifically to the Roosevelt, there is inadequate communication between district and school leaders.

Leadership

The panel concluded from staff interviews and the school leadership meeting that the principal is a leader who demonstrates purpose, energy, and confidence that the Roosevelt can help students achieve at higher levels. Panelists also found that nearly all of the 42 teachers responding to the staff survey strongly agreed (33%) or somewhat agreed (62%) that the principal provides effective leadership to guide and support staff efforts to improve academic performance. During the school leadership meeting, the principal explained the school's plan to focus on writing across the curriculum, but panelists were concerned that he had not identified or promoted an initiative on improving student performance in mathematics. In addition, while panelists found that the principal could communicate to the panel during the school leadership meeting the school's strengths, weaknesses, and needs, there was evidence from staff interviews that the leadership has not adequately and effectively communicated the improvement plan to all staff. In addition, the panel found little evidence of prior school improvement plans or a formal planning process that involved staff and parents. Panel members were concerned that without a clearly written plan that is effectively communicated to all staff, the leadership at the school will have difficulty monitoring progress.

Faculty

From staff interviews and the school leadership meeting, panelists found that the school has a concerned and dedicated group of staff members. In addition, the panel perceived from the staff survey results that the staff is optimistic that MCAS performance will improve this year. Although the panel found that staff members generally agree that there is an improvement plan, they perceived no clear consensus among staff on its instructional priorities beyond the broad focus on writing. Staff survey results also indicated that teachers want more empowerment in the planning and decision-making processes of the school. The panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence of clear buy-in by all staff with regard to the improvement plan.

District Support

The panel found that while the district is beginning to give some active support and assistance to the Roosevelt leadership team in the development and implementation of an improvement plan, the coordination and communication between the school and district is minimal. Panel members found that in general district officials have taken several steps to improve planning for and support to New Bedford schools. For example, the district has established a collaboration team for the transition to the middle school process. The district also has made a commitment to provide professional development this summer to Roosevelt staff on transitioning to the middle school approach to education.

The district has provided some human and financial resources to help meet some student needs at the Roosevelt. For instance, Title I staff have helped to keep the average class size to approximately 22 students (except in the case of bilingual classes), and access to computer technology has increased. However, when panelists asked in the school leadership meeting why item analysis had not been completed for the Mathematics results, the district mathematics coordinator reported that he had not had time to do that analysis for the Roosevelt. Based on documentation and discussions with staff, the panel learned that the four district curriculum coordinators spend much of their time in the high school and do not often get to the junior high schools.

Panel members concluded from their meeting with school and district leadership that there is inadequate communication between district and school leaders with regard to planning. The panel found insufficient evidence from their meeting with district officials that the school's improvement plan is tied to the district's improvement plan. There also was little evidence that the district has evaluated the effect of current resources at the Roosevelt. The staff survey indicated that 90 percent of teachers were unsure (83%) or disagreed (7%) that the Roosevelt receives the assistance needed from district administrators and staff to support its improvement efforts.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, panel members concluded that although there were areas of weakness with regard to analysis and planning, the Roosevelt Junior High School has a sound improvement plan. The panel also concluded that there is mixed evidence that the conditions are in place to successfully implement the Roosevelt improvement plan.