Report of the Follow-up School Panel Review of the Solomon Lewenberg Middle School, Boston, MA

Introduction

The Solomon Lewenberg School was one of twelve middle schools referred for panel review in the spring of 2001 as a result of critically low levels of student performance on State MCAS assessments in 1998 and declining MCAS results in 1999-2000. A Panel Review was conducted in March of 2001. At that time, the panel found there to be significant inadequacies in the Solomon Lewenberg Middle School's plan for improving student achievement. Moreover, panel members found that:

Although there were some elements of the Lewenberg School Improvement Plan that partially address the needs of the school, the Lewenberg Middle School does not have a plan for improvement which reflects a clear analysis of data to determine gaps in student performance and reasons for those gaps.¹

Upon consideration of the panel findings, the Commissioner deferred action on the determination of under-performance for a period of six months, and provided a $25,000 grant to support planning and school improvement efforts during that time. The principal and a planning team from the Solomon Lewenberg Middle School participated in facilitated work sessions during June, August, and September, at which Department technical assistance staff and data analysts guided the school's planning team through an inquiry-based process designed to help them develop a sound plan for improving student performance at their school. At the conclusion of the six-month deferral period, a follow-up review was conducted at the school by a four-member review panel.

The Scope of the Follow-up Review Process

The follow-up review panel's charge was to review the original panel's findings, analyze current data and written information on the school's improvement efforts, visit the school, and meet with school and district officials in order to advise the Commissioner of its findings relative to the same two key questions that guided the original panel review:

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 follow-up panel's responses to the two key questions that defined the scope of their review are included 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 Solomon Lewenberg School follow-up review is provided in Appendix A. A detailed schedule of the panel's activities is provided in Appendix B.

The panel's findings and conclusions on the two key questions will be forwarded to the Commissioner of Education for consideration in determining whether the Solomon Lewenberg School is deemed to be under-performing.

Solomon Lewenberg Middle School Profile

Solomon Lewenberg Middle School enrolled 633 students in grades six through eight as of fall 2000.² Eighty-one percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 25 percent spoke a first language other than English. The school identified 21 percent of its students as Limited English Proficient and reported that eight percent were Hispanic, four percent were white, 87 percent were African-American, and one percent were Asian.

Students missed on average 12 days of school in 2000-2001, for a daily attendance rate of 93.6 percent. In that same year, 22 students (3%) received out-of-school suspensions, while none were suspended in school. No students were excluded for more than 10 days. Additionally in 2001, one student dropped out, and 65 (10%) were retained in grade.

MCAS Test Results

Cycle 1 Results

Overall MCAS results showed that 1999 and 2000 scores on average were lower than in 1998. In comparing the 1998 baseline to the 1999 and 2000 average, scores declined by two points in English Language Arts, remained the same in Mathematics, and declined one point in Science & Technology. In 2000, 38 percent scored in the Failing performance level in English Language Arts, 79 percent scored in Failing in Mathematics, and 87 percent scored in Failing in Science & Technology. MCAS participation rates decreased from 96 percent in 1998 to approximately 90 percent in 2000, principally due to declining participation among special education students and LEP students.

2001 Results

A= Advanced
P= Proficient
NI= Needs Improvement
W= Warning (formerly Failing)

Panel Reponses to the Key Questions

Key Question 1: does the School have a Sound Plan for Improving Student Performance?

Yes. The Solomon Lewenberg Middle School has a sound improvement plan that is based on a comprehensive analysis of student performance on external and internal assessment data. The document has clear goals that specify areas for improvement in student performance that are directly linked to the school's analysis. The plan provides clear strategies for attaining each of these goals as well as measurable benchmarks, realistic timelines and responsible parties. The plan has been developed through a collaborative process that involved district representatives and the entire faculty.

A. Has the school analyzed appropriate data and program information to accurately identify the gaps in student performance and determined why those gaps exist?

Yes. The Solomon Lewenberg Middle School has made tremendous strides in analyzing appropriate data to identify gaps in student performance and in determining why those gaps exist. Late last spring, the school hired an outside consultant in evaluation and measurement to assist them in the process of looking more closely at their formative and summative data. She worked with members of the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) and available teachers over the summer, disaggregating data. This process was augmented by summer work with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and work this fall with the entire faculty. This extensive process, which involved all stakeholders, resulted in a comprehensive analysis of student performance and a partial analysis of the efficacy of existing programs.

The consultant examined the Stanford 9, MCAS and the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) data available by disaggregating for groups within the school. The analysis identifies specific gaps in literacy and mathematics skills. Throughout the summer, she met with school members and trained them to look at data and interpret their significance. On the first day of this school year, the analysis of student performance was presented to the entire staff via a PowerPoint demonstration. The staff then divided into groups and worked through the information so as to understand it firsthand. Teachers and administrators commented to the panel that this task was extremely helpful as they now have a systematic process for looking at and analyzing data.

The primary key trends found after an in-depth examination of the data were weak computation skills, poor vocabulary, and difficulty with open-ended responses. The ILT will continue to look closely at assessment data each marking term, disaggregating data by different groups, specifically special education and bilingual students. In cluster meetings, teachers will share student work and discuss strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, in November, the school will begin using LIZA, a computer program being implemented by Boston Public Schools that will give all teachers access to individual student performance data.

While some initiatives in the plan appear to be linked to program review, such as the hiring of three transition teachers to assist in reducing class size in literacy and mathematics, the Lewenberg's data analysis would benefit from a more in-depth review of existing programs. At present, the only clear form of program evaluation is classroom observation by administrators. ILT members informed the panel that they intend to make program evaluation a priority.

B. Does the plan set out specific improvement objectives that are grounded in the school's analysis of the reasons for poor student performance?

Yes. The improvement objectives listed in the revised Lewenberg Improvement plan are focused on student achievement and directly linked to identified reasons for poor student performance. While the six "Smart Goals" in the areas of Literacy/English Language Arts and Mathematics are broad due to the district's approach, these goals are broken down into more specific objectives within the related strategies, action steps and benchmarks. Smart Goal #1 for Literacy/English Language Arts, for example, states that "a minimum of 10% of students will move out of Level 1 on the 2002 MCAS in English Language Arts." The strategies below it reveal such specific objectives as developing vocabulary, improving writing for open-ended response questions and cultivating reading comprehension. These objectives are linked to students' identified weaknesses in vocabulary and open-ended responses.

Smart Goal #1 for Literacy/English Language Arts also contains specific measures to assess attainment of the goal. Apart from analyzing the spring-to-spring results from the MCAS and the Stanford 9, the school will review writing prompts that are given three times a year, as well as administer the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI).

Smart Goal #1 for Mathematics states that "at least 20% of students will move out of Level 1 on the 2002 MCAS in mathematics." Its strategies reveal the specific objectives to build math literacy skills, reinforce basic computation skills and improve geometry and measurement skills. These objectives were driven by the school's findings that geometry, measurement and computation are their students' weakest areas.

Staff members recognized that improvement goals can only be realized if everyone involved understands and is focused on them. Communication about improvement efforts is becoming effective. Teachers meet in cluster groups twice weekly; they participate in study-inquiry groups; they visit one another's classrooms; and they have scheduled common planning time within each grade level.

C. In order to accomplish each improvement objective, does the plan specify strategies, which appear likely to lead to improved student results?

Yes. The plan's strategies to accomplish each objective appear likely to lead to lead to improved student results. The instructional strategies under each "Smart Goal" target the weaknesses identified in the MCAS, Stanford 9, SRI, and Math Test assessments, especially poor vocabulary and weak computation skills. These include a variety of tactics that are likely to lead to improvement student results, such as vocabulary development, reading comprehension practice, daily computation skill review, and writing prompts.

Initiatives, such as the Readers' and Writers' Workshops, Connected Math Program, Llife (Supporting Literacy), and the Inquiry Group (professional development and support led by Lesley University faculty members), are directly linked to the weaknesses identified in the student's performance on the MCAS, SRI, Stanford 9, Math Test and LASW. The plan's objectives are also aligned with the district's improvement goals.

The results of formative and summative data have led to the refinement of instructional practices. Teachers have access to common planning time, model classes, 90 minutes of cluster meeting time twice a week, and numerous professional development opportunities offered by district coaches and in-house specialists in math and language arts. In interviews and focus groups, teachers uniformly told panel members that this collaboration has been the most vital change in their approach to instruction. Rather than work in isolated pockets, the faculty visit one another's classrooms, share student work, co-teach, and collectively attend professional training.

The Lewenberg may not be using technology as effectively as possible in support of its math and literacy initiatives, per the improvement plan's key objectives. Students take computer courses, but language arts and math teachers do not have access to the computer lab to incorporate technology into their content areas.

The panel is also concerned about students' access to science labs. At present, the school's lab is not ready for use.

D. Are the school's written improvement planning document (s) clear and specific enough to guide their implementation of planned improvement initiatives?

Yes. The Lewenberg action plan is clear and specific enough to guide the school's implementation of planned improvement initiatives. It consists of six "Smart Goals" in the areas of Literacy/English Language Arts and Mathematics, as well as the Whole School Improvement Plan template provided by the district. The plan includes general goals, specific instructional strategies under those goals, rationales for change, action steps, responsible personnel, a reasonable timeline and benchmarks.

The document contains broad "Smart Goals" followed by very specific strategies. One example is Smart Goal #2 Stanford 9-Mathematics, which states, "At least 55% of our student population will be achieving at or above Level 2 on the 2002 Stanford 9 in mathematics," and one of its accompanying instructional strategies, which states "Teachers will conduct 15 minutes of basic computation skill reinforcement daily."

The plan provides a clear rationale for its strategies and detailed action steps that must be taken. Moreover, benchmarks have been established to check for periodic progress, such as the Boston Public School Math Assessment given in the fall, midyear and end-of-year, with goal attainment consisting of having at least 80% of students completing 5 of 8 math tasks correctly by the end of the year. Others examples of specific methods of evaluation are analysis of periodic Writing Prompts, the SRI, the Stanford 9 Reading test and feedback from LASW.

E. Was the School Improvement Plan developed through a process that will support its successful implementation?

Yes. The Solomon Lewenberg Whole School Improvement Plan was developed through a collaborative process that involved all stakeholders. The process entailed a team working with a consultant training faculty to disaggregate and understand data and with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education during the summer on creating an effective school improvement plan; a PowerPoint presentation displaying the findings and information to the entire school; and the whole faculty working through the analysis as a team.

The process has been inclusive, with representatives from every instructional cluster in the school, involvement of the literacy, math and change coaches, administrators and parents. Interviews and focus group discussions confirmed the fact that there is continuous solicitation of faculty input across curricular areas and grade levels. For example, the Lewenberg ILT has expanded this year from 14 to 22 members and is now totally inclusive of all areas of the school, including guidance. Parents are also sought for input, and those whose primary language is not English are provided with district-level translators and/or school-based ESL classes. All stakeholders appear to understand where the school is and where it has to go.

Key Question 2: Are the Conditions in Place for the Successful Implementation of the Improvement Plan(s)?

Yes. The conditions are in place for the successful implementation of the improvement plan. The Lewenberg has effective leaders who understand the needs of the school and how to get necessary support. The entire staff appears united in the quest for improved student performance.

A. Does the school have effective leadership and sound management?

Teachers reported that the administration is open to their questions and issues and is interested in collaborating to seek solutions to problems. This is evident by the numerous people in the building who assume leadership roles-the Assistant Principals, Director of Instruction, math and literacy specialists and coaches, the Change Coach, and LAB (Learning Adaptive Behavior) Cluster Coordinator. These individuals and the rest of the Instructional Leadership Team play significant roles in guiding improvement efforts. The principal has also brought in two professors from Lesley University to work with teachers-one to work with social studies teachers on building content knowledge and one who has been working with the ILT in aligning and diversifying the curriculum.

The principal is viewed by faculty as a co-worker, involved in instruction and, as one teacher told the team, "working shoulder-to-shoulder" with teachers and coaches. She has an "open door" policy and is accessible to all. She has made a concerted effort to build a team, by enlarging the ILT with representatives from all groups, seeking input from the entire staff in decision-making, and fostering a unified desire to succeed. It was clear to the panel throughout the day that people are beginning to communicate and are looking in the same direction with enthusiasm. Comments like "we have the same vocabulary" and "we are on the same page" resonated in conversations with teachers.

When required, the principal seeks the help of the district to secure resources or staff needs. For example, she was actively involved in setting up the after-school program. She requested mandatory after-school time for all students scoring at level one on the SAT 9 and, as a result of her insistence, she received it. She also successfully reallocated resources to hire three new transition teachers Moreover, eleven new teachers, including three Transition teachers were hired to assist in reducing class size in literacy and mathematics; three math teachers, one science teacher, one bilingual literacy teacher, one bilingual science teacher, one LAB teacher and one guidance counselor.

The Director of Instruction, a full time position at the school, works closely with the Principal on curriculum alignment, teacher evaluation and standards-based planning. Her other responsibilities include coordinating all the supports coming into the school, facilitating the 8th grade cluster group meetings, training faculty in protocols to look at student work, verifying that the strategies are being used in instruction by visiting classes, and organizing professional development opportunities.

The ILT guides and monitors all school improvement efforts. The ILT clarifies the needs of the school by analyzing internal and external assessment data and designing possible solutions. Point people from each cluster communicate the ILT's progress to all teachers. Minutes from the ILT's meetings are also distributed to all teachers.

The Lewenberg is making a significant effort to increase the participation of families and the community in the school. Among the many activities being initiated are workshops on standardized testing, collaborative dinners, ESL classes for parents, curriculum breakfasts on Saturdays, home visits from the Student Support Team members, and a bilingual interpreter provided by the district to assist parents who do not speak English.

The panel heard from students, teachers and parents that the school is a safe place. There exists a positive school climate created by strong morale, high expectations for all, and a genuine belief that the school can make a difference in the performance of their students. The cluster structure is an important vehicle for communication. In general, the faculty believes the use of agenda-driven cluster meeting time is beneficial; however, some clusters are still trying to strike a balance between common planning time and professional development activities.

Teachers feel the process they have undergone these past six months has pulled them together. It has generated a significant amount of conversation about teaching and learning. They are committed, and parents were passionate in focus groups about the extent to which teachers give of themselves. Phone calls home to report good and bad behavior, after-school help, and spontaneous parent-teacher conferences are common practice.

B. Is there evidence that the school's faculty supports the planned improvement efforts?

Teachers in interviews and focus groups expressed a clear knowledge of the School Improvement Plan and a willingness to do their part to implement it. They spend time discussing curricula and instruction, look at student work; work with the specialists, coaches and Lesley University professors; and engage in activities linked to the SIP. Some faculty members remain beyond contractual hours to help students in the after-school and Saturday program. They expressed a commitment to and passion for working with their students.

Teachers agree with the school's assessment of identified needs. The same applies to the improvement strategies being planned and implemented. When asked to what the ILT attributes all the positive changes that have occurred in the school these past few months, one member stated, "we now have a clear, common sense of need and a common focus brought on by a plan." Agreeing with this, another member said, "we have taken a charge; we have ownership."

There is evidence of co-teaching and interdisciplinary work, especially bringing reading, writing and math skills into all classrooms. Expressive Academic courses, including physical education, make a point of bringing in topics being covered in other subjects. Word walls, student portfolios, grammar posters and displays of student work decorate many classrooms. Teachers are proud of the work that is happening and are driven by the firm belief that the implementation of their initiatives will result in improved student performance.

C. Is the school receiving adequate guidance and support from the district leadership?

The district has provided guidance in the school improvement planning process by focusing the school on six Essentials of Whole School Change. They created an improvement planning guide and a template that requires the school to articulate a goal, rationale for change, action steps, responsible personnel, a timeline, and a means of measuring goal attainment.

The district has also made available a wealth of human resources at the Solomon Lewenberg to focus efforts on instruction. The Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum Instructional Specialist and Director of Instruction support the principal. District level coaches in math and literacy work with teachers in their classrooms and provide professional development one day a week. A change coach facilitates the ILT as they prepare, implement, and monitor the WSIP. Furthermore, the district has responded to the principal's request for three teachers and a data consultant. However, while there are sufficient coaching and support services, as well as sufficient basic supplies and textbooks, the panel found that access to the science and computer labs could be improved.

Conclusion

The Lewenberg School Improvement Plan is a clear and specific living document that addresses the needs of the school. After a thorough analysis of student performance data with the help of the ESE and an outside consultant, a team of ILT members and available teachers identified gaps in student performance, prioritized goals and selected strategies with a clear link to those goals. This information was then presented to the entire staff on the first day of school, and they, too, worked through the data. The process that Solomon Lewenberg Middle School underwent to develop its plan resulted in the unification of the staff; everyone understands the school's strengths and needs and is committed to the success of all students. It is this that is anchoring all initiatives.

The school has sufficient leadership and resources, at both the school and district levels to implement the plan.

Appendix A
Team Members

Ledyard McFadden, Panel Chairperson, President, SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA

Dominique Astier, Consultant for SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA

Dr. Lorraine A. Plasse, Director of English Language Arts and Library Services/Coordinator of Teaching and Learning, Springfield, MA

Edward Winter, Instructional Technology Specialist, McKinley School, Revere, MA

Appendix B
Evaluating School Performance
Detailed Schedule for Review Panel School Site Visit

¹ Quoted from a letter from Commissioner Driscoll to Principal Mayfield dated April 26, 2001.
² Data not yet available for 2001-2002 academic year.