School Panel Review Report

John F. Kennedy Middle School - Springfield 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 Kennedy 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 Kennedy 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 Kennedy 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.

Kennedy Middle School Profile

The John F. Kennedy Middle School is one of five middle schools in the Springfield Public Schools. The district also has two K-8 schools and a few alternative schools that serve the middle school grades. The Kennedy Middle School reported 648 students enrolled in grades 6-8 in 1999, of whom 87 percent were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch and 36 percent had a first language other than English. No students were identified as Limited English Proficient. The attendance rate reported in 1999 was 87 percent (average of 24 days absent). There was one dropout that year, and 33 students were retained in grade. The school reported 14 student exclusions in 1998. According to the school, 17 percent of the students received one or more out-of-school suspensions in 1999, and 39 percent received one or more in-school suspensions.

The school reported 65 staff members. The principal has been at this school for two years; there are two assistant principals.

MCAS Results

When the MCAS results from English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, and Science & Technology (S&T) are averaged together, the Kennedy Middle School in 1998 had 67 percent of its eighth grade students scoring at the Failing performance level and eight percent scoring at Proficient or Advanced. In 1999 the percent Failing increased to 74 percent, and the percent Proficient or Advanced decreased to six percent. The overall average scaled score declined from 214.0 in 1998 to 211.7 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 at the Failing performance level increased in ELA from 33 percent in 1998 to 40 percent in 1999. In Math the percentage Failing increased from 83 to 88 percent, and in S&T the percentage Failing increased from 86 to 93 percent in 1999. The MCAS average scaled score dropped from 1998 to 1999 in all three content areas, from 225 to 223 in ELA, from 208 to 207 in Math, and from 209 to 205 in S&T.

No improvement trends are evident when the MCAS results are disaggregated by student sub-groups. The average scaled scores for regular education students declined from 1998 to 1999 in all three content areas (from 227 to 225 in ELA; from 209 to 208 in Math; from 210 to 205 in S&T). Participation for regular education students remained at 100 percent in Math and S&T for both years, but dropped from 99 to 89 percent in ELA. Results for Special Education (SPED) students declined from 1998 to 1999 in all three content areas (from 219 to 216 in ELA; from 203 to 202 in Math; from 204 to 202 in S&T). Participation for SPED students remained at 100 percent in Math and S&T for both years, but dropped from 100 to 85 percent in ELA. Results for males in ELA declined in 1999 (from 224 to 220), while results for females stayed the same (228). In Math results for males decreased (from 208 to 206), and results for females increased (from 208 to 209). In S&T results for both groups showed decline from 1998 to 1999 (from 210 to 204 for males; from 207 to 206 for females).

The school submitted a report of local assessment data that shows mixed results in improvement of student performance.

Panel Responses to Key Questions

Key Question #1:

does the school have a sound plan for improving student performance?

The panel concluded, based on the evidence provided, that the Kennedy Middle School has a sound plan for improving student performance. The panel found that the school has a clear understanding of current student performance based on data analysis and self-assessment. The panel also found that the school is focused on teaching and learning and has begun developing and implementing plans to address identified issues.

In assessing whether the school has a sound plan for improving student performance, the panel considered the School Improvement Plan (SIP) for 1999-2000 and other documentation that identified or articulated school plans, as well as on-site discussions with school staff and leadership. In addition to the SIP, the school submitted an eighteen-page letter written in response to the panel review, signed by both the district superintendent and the school principal. In considering the two key questions, the panel found the letter to be a significant source of information. The letter includes evidence of the district and school conducting a needs assessment and using the information collected to inform school improvement planning. The panel found that the letter identifies areas of concern based on the analysis of data and classroom observation. The letter also outlines school and district improvement initiatives.

Analysis

The panel found that the school staff and leadership have begun to do an analysis of need and plan to do more such analyses. Although some panel members expressed concern that there has not been enough staff involvement in data analysis, they found that most of the staff demonstrated an understanding of student performance based on data. In the leadership team meeting, the principal explained that at a workshop last summer 25 teachers and three administrators started looking at data and identifying problems. The panel also found some evidence that the school has assessed classroom practice. The letter responding to the panel review states that the school has conducted a staff survey to get input on four major areas of concern: student achievement, attendance, student discipline, and the learning environment (physical facility). At the time of the panel visit, results from the school's survey were not yet available. The panel concluded that the school staff and leadership have a clear understanding of what needs to take place to improve student performance: they expressed a specific, clear recognition of the need to attend to academics and instruction.

Planning

Based on the data analysis and self-assessment, the school has begun to formulate and implement plans and initiatives. The response letter identifies programs and services that have been implemented in response to the identified needs, including the reorganization of staff into service teams to address the needs of particular groups of students, professional development and mentoring, and an after-school academic program. According to the letter, three teachers are enrolled in an English as a Second Language Master's degree program. The principal indicated that these staff have committed to providing support to other teachers in instruction for English language learners. Some panel members were concerned, however, that this may not adequately address the needs of English language learners.

The SIP also identifies actions and strategies that respond to the identified needs. The panel found, however, that the document submitted as the 1999-2000 School Improvement Plan does not cover all the positive steps being implemented that were evident from discussions with school staff and classroom observations. Specifically, the panel found that the SIP does not focus on specific content areas beyond English language arts, does not specify classroom practice adequately, and lacks quantitative measures. The panel was also concerned about the lack of connection between the SIP and the response letter and concluded that the plans articulated in the response letter and in discussions with school staff and leadership should be incorporated into the written SIP.

Key Question #2:

Are the conditions in place for the successful implementation of the school's improvement plan?

The panel concluded that the conditions are in place for the successful implementation of the school's improvement plans. The panel found that the school staff and leadership show a sense of efficacy and optimism and that individuals are taking responsibility for implementing changes. Staff demonstrated agreement about the need for change and the initiatives planned. The panel also found evidence of district support for the school's planning and improvement efforts.

Leadership

In the meeting with the principal and assistant principals, the panel found the school's leadership to be confident and to have a clear understanding of the school's strengths and weaknesses. The leadership appears to be responding to identified needs in a thoughtful, systematic way. The principal indicated that during the previous school year, which was her first year in the school, she was focused on getting to know the staff, students, and school, and learning about middle schools in general. This year she has focused on identifying problems and developing and implementing strategies to address them. The leadership team expressed a clear focus on academic achievement. The panel found that structures are being developed to provide support and leadership for teachers. For example, a group, "Teachers Helping Teachers," has been implemented. It was originally to provide support and guidance for new teachers, but staff reported that other teachers participate as well. Also, as the leadership team explained, the staff meets once a week, and one out of every three meetings is focused on school improvement. The panel was concerned, however, that the school has not clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the assistant principals and department heads. The panel also found limited evidence that specific expectations for instruction are communicated clearly. The school identified these deficiencies as well, and the panel felt confident that there would be movement to address them in the near future.

Faculty

The panel found evidence that the school's staff agree with the needs identified and the plans developed and implemented to address the needs. The results of the staff survey conducted by the Department indicated that most of the staff is positive about the school's leadership and the school's goals and plans. Discussions with staff supported the survey results. The panel found evidence that there exists a critical core of teachers necessary for effecting positive change. In the teacher interviews and group discussions, the panel found that the staff is open and receptive to change and share a sense of efficacy and optimism. They expressed interest in professional development and appreciation for the opportunities provided to them.

Panel members observed an uneven quality of instruction, however, and were concerned that although staff appears to be open to change and reflective about themselves as teachers, changes are not consistently being implemented in the classroom. The panel also found that staff members are concerned about a lack of consistency regarding discipline. Both the school and the district leadership also identified instruction and discipline as critical issues for improvement, and they identified that the two are connected. The panel found that plans to address these issues are starting to be developed and implemented.

District Support

The panel found that district administrators provide support and guidance for the school's self-assessment and improvement efforts. The district has implemented a process for all its schools that involves data analysis and site visits by district administrators, resulting in specific feedback to the school and direct support for improvement. The process also provides opportunities for school leadership to interact with leadership from other schools and to share strategies and ideas. The response letter explained that in the beginning of the current school year the district implemented a process from the Institute for Learning (University of Pittsburgh) to develop the principal as the educational leader. The letter further explained that this process involves "...WalkThroughs as a means to establish a comprehensive and intensive analysis of the school's data and to establish a customized plan for each school to address the specific needs for improvement." According to the letter, the principal and assistant principals participated in the process, and district administrators conducted follow-up visits to the school.

The panel found some evidence that the district is providing curriculum support to the school and that the district recognizes the need to provide more. Four content area specialists have been appointed by the district and are now focused on this school. District administrators identified the need to support an expanding role for department heads within the school. In addition, they indicated that the district plans to revise and expand the district curriculum for each content area, completing it by the end of this summer. Some panel members expressed concern, however, that this more comprehensive curriculum is not already in place. Panel members found limited evidence that the district provides support for English language learners in the school. District administrators recognized the need to examine the assessment, placement, and instruction for English language learners to ensure appropriate support.

While the panel concluded that the district provides support to the school, panel members were concerned that the district's initiatives appear to be top-down approaches, rather than collaborative efforts with the school. Panel members perceived that to a certain extent the school and district are on parallel paths, headed in the same direction, but without clear communication and collaboration between them.

Conclusion

Panel members agreed that the school staff and leadership have a clear understanding of current performance and needs based on data analysis and self-assessment. The panel also agreed that the school's plans and strategies are sound and address the identified needs.

The panel found that the school's leadership provides direction and support for the improvement efforts and that the school staff is in agreement with the plans. The district also provides guidance and assistance, along with financial and human resources. The panel concluded that these conditions support the successful implementation of the school's improvement plans.