Report of the Follow-Up School Panel Review of the Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA

Introduction

The Robert F. Kennedy Middle 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 Kennedy School's plan for improving student achievement. In particular, panel members found:

The school's leadership lacks a vision and direction driven by a solid understanding of the current school practices and their outcomes. The conditions necessary for successful implementation of a sound school improvement plan at the Robert F. Kennedy School are further impaired by the planned separation of the Amigos and Standard programs into two individual schools, a structural change that will necessitate the creation and implementation of revised school improvement plans.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 $12,500 grant to support planning and school improvement efforts during that time. The Department provided the school with the opportunity to participate in a series of guided school improvement planning sessions during June, August, and September. At the end of the last school year (2000-01), the Amigos program was granted independent school status from the Robert F. Kennedy School, though they reside in the same facility. The Principal and a planning team from the Robert F. Kennedy School participated in these facilitated work sessions, 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 data and written information on the school's performance and improvement efforts since the time of the first panel review, 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 Robert F. Kennedy Middle 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 Robert F. Kennedy Middle School is deemed to be under-performing.

Robert F. Kennedy School Profile

The Kennedy School is a K-8 school, with 82 of its 274 students enrolled in grades six through eight as of fall 2001. Sixty-two percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 62 percent also spoke a first language other than English. The school identified 78 percent as Limited English Proficient and reported that 69 percent of the students were Hispanic, 20 percent were white, eight percent were African-American, one percent were Asian, and one percent were Native American.

Students missed on average 10 days of school in 2000-2001, for a daily attendance rate of 94.5 percent. In that same year, one student (1%) received out-of-school suspensions, while 17 students (8%) were suspended in school. No students were excluded for more than 10 days. Additionally in 2000-2001, no students dropped out, and one student (1%) was retained in grade.

MCAS Test Results

Cycle I Results

Overall MCAS results declined in 1999 but improved in 2000. In comparing the 1998 baseline score to the 1999 and 2000 average, scores fell three points in English Language Arts, one point in Mathematics and three points in Science & Technology. In 2000, 31 percent scored in the Failing performance level in English Language Arts, 69 percent scored in Failing in Mathematics, and 79 percent scored in Failing in Science & Technology. Approximately one-third of the eighth grade class was identified on MCAS as special education students, and all participated in the test.

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?

Administrators and teachers at the Kennedy School have constructed and put into action an improvement plan directly linked to identified student learning needs. The plan is based on a comprehensive analysis of student performance on the MCAS tests complemented with a review of local assessment data and a thorough examination of school programs and practices. The strategies included in the plan are clear, specific and consistently implemented by the school staff.

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

At the Kennedy School, a number of groups have been involved in the examination of student and school performance information. A small group of teachers and the Principal participated in an intensive data training program offered by the Cambridge School District at the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year. Their work provided the Kennedy staff with an overview of student performance on the Stanford 9 Reading test given each fall in the district, disaggregated by gender, ethnicity and poverty indicators. Special needs teachers made use of the Stanford data summaries to complement other assessments of student achievement in order to design appropriate instruction for students referred for special services. In general, the faculty found the Stanford 9 data informative, but did not find it helpful in identifying specific student learning needs.

In anticipation of a dramatic change in school structure, the division of the two programs in the Kennedy School into separate organizations, a 25 member Steering Committee consisting of Kennedy parents, staff and community members was convened in February, 2001. The Steering Committee organized into subcommittees to consider issues related to professional development, budget, curriculum development and parent outreach and information. The Steering Committee met every Monday evening through the winter and spring to review school programs and to make recommendations on the direction of the newly reconfigured Kennedy School.

While the Steering Committee examined all program areas and their effectiveness for Kennedy students, a separate committee of teachers reviewed the mathematics curriculum. Early in the past school year, the staff recognized the weaknesses of having five different math programs in the building. The math committee conducted an internal audit of content and skills in each program, reviewed the proficiencies required of students according to state and local curriculum frameworks, and researched existing math programs to find one that suited the needs of their students. As a result of their work, Kennedy students have a common mathematics program across grades K-5 that covers content and skills at increasing levels of challenge as students move through the grades. Teachers in grades 6-8 continue their use of the CMP program, with ongoing review of the program's support of specific areas of student weakness.

The most recent team involved in the analysis of school data to inform the Kennedy School improvement plan is the School Improvement Team, informally known as the 'data team.' This group of teachers and administrators included the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the Cambridge School District. Members of the 'data team' attended the workshops in June, August, and September offered by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for schools deferred for further review after a panel review in the spring of 2001. In addition to the improvement planning advice gathered from the ESE sessions, the data team contracted for additional services from a specialist in data analysis from the ESE Office of Accountability and Targeted Assistance.

From their work with the ATA consultant and their continued efforts through July and August, the data team made a number of discoveries about Kennedy students based on their close scrutiny of MCAS results. For one, students who had been at Kennedy for several years outperformed their more recently enrolled counterparts in almost all tests. The gap between the achievement levels of special education students (who make up 20% of Kennedy's population) and the performance of regular education students was not unexpected, but was striking in its magnitude. Following from their examination of students' correct and incorrect answers on an item by item review of the most recent test, data team members discovered four distinct patterns of weakness among Kennedy students: mathematics writing, mathematics terminology, literary genre terminology, and inferential thinking related to literature and to mathematics. These four areas form the foundation for the revised Kennedy School Improvement Plan.

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

The improvement objectives listed in the revised Kennedy School Improvement plan are directly linked to reasons for poor student performance that can be influenced by changes in teaching and curriculum at the school. Faculty and staff expressed personal responsibility for implementing changes in their teaching to support accomplishment of the school's improvement objectives.

To its credit, the data team recognized that the "Aha!" experience they encountered while conducting their intensive summer work would be a powerful experience to share with the full faculty. At a meeting before school began in September, the data team presented their item analysis wall charts to the staff and prompted them to identify patterns among students' correct and incorrect answers. As expected, the areas of student weakness identified by the full faculty matched those uncovered by the summer data team.

Following the data team's presentation, Kennedy teachers worked in grade level clusters to begin to identify possible reasons for poor student performance on the particular types of questions identified in the item analysis. A number of teachers interviewed during the follow-up visit credit the experience of looking directly at student responses on specific test items with their enhanced understanding of the link between what they teach in their classrooms and how well students perform on measures like the MCAS. For example, a resource room teacher explained that they were not surprised their students performed poorly because of the serious reading difficulties many of their clients face. Because special needs teachers have access to so much student assessment information, they often overlooked the MCAS. However, when they began to examine the specific skills students were expected to acquire, special needs teachers recognized multiple ways they could modify their teaching to help weak readers become better at inferential thinking or literary terminology. Special needs teachers already knew that at least one reason for poor student performance on inferential thinking MCAS questions was poor reading skills, but they describe their renewed understanding that even students with significant learning disabilities could improve if they were given more focused practice using higher order thinking skills. Regular education teachers came to similar conclusions: Kennedy students will improve their skills if the teachers provide more focused instruction in the areas in which they need support. Staff members recognized that, while many factors encourage or hinder student achievement, schools and teachers could have influence by changing what occurs in the classroom.

With wide agreement on areas of student learning in need of improvement and the reasons for student weaknesses, the Kennedy School staff identified four specific improvement objectives:
"Objective 1.1. Student will improve competency in mathematical writing by 5% as measured by 2003 MCAS mathematics results.
Objective 1.2. Students will demonstrate mastery of mathematical terminology with a 5% increase in 2003 MCAS mathematics results.
Objective 2.1. Students will demonstrate mastery of literary terminology by an average of 5% increase in ELA MCAS raw scores, in all grades tested on related questions by 2003. Objective 2.2. Students will demonstrate increased proficiency on questions requiring inferential thinking skills on passage analysis by an average of 5% increase in ELA MCAS raw scores, in all grades tested on related questions, by 2003." (Summary of New and Revised Goals 2001-2003, Kennedy School Improvement Plan)

The objectives are directly connected with the patterns identified in the item analysis and are realistic and measurable. The Improvement Team recognized that any strategies that are selected require adequate time to demonstrate improvement, so the objective lists the 2003 MCAS scores as the long range measure against which the plan will be judged. At the present time, members of the grade 3-5 cluster are developing a scoring rubric to share with the staff that will serve as a more frequent local assessment of progress toward the broad long range objectives. Additional short term benchmarks are included within the plan to measure progress of the specific strategies aligned with each objective.

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

The Kennedy School Improvement Plan identifies strategies that address changes in three aspects of teaching: (1) changes in the content of lessons; (2) changes in the methods by which material is presented; and (3) changes in the frequency and quality of assessment of student progress. The Kennedy plan is highly likely to lead to improved student results because it attends to all three critical aspects of students' classroom experiences.

(Please note that the Kennedy Plan is comprehensive in that it outlines strategies for all grade level clusters, K-2, 3-5 and 6-8. The Follow-up Panel Review focuses only on those strategies designated for the 6-8 cluster.)

When the faculty identified mathematics terminology and mathematics writing as areas where Kennedy students need support, the 6-8 cluster teachers defined specific content changes to be implemented this school year. Every 6-8 teacher of mathematics will incorporate 15 minutes of mathematics writing in the Core Knowledge/ Humanities classes. Teachers will construct a mathematics "word wall" and help students maintain terminology notebooks and class sets of terminology flash cards. The Physical Education teacher is collaborating with all grade level clusters to create a computerized database of math and literacy terminology over the course of the year.

Similar changes in content are listed as strategies to improve students' understanding of literary terminology and inferential thinking. In each Literary Studies class, grade 6-8 students are being guided to create terminology sections of their writing journals, to use graphic organizers as tools for developing systematic writing skills, and to write in journals to demonstrate understanding of literary terminology and concepts. Literary studies teachers will focus on passage analysis and associated inferential thinking skills with their students. Special subjects teachers are included in the changes in content and method of teaching at Kennedy. The art and music teachers are each bringing language skills into their classes. In one class observed during the follow-up visit, the teacher opened an eighth grade special needs class with a skill drill in rhyming words from the lyrics of a new song, seamlessly weaving music with language studies.

Each of the strategies for changing teaching methods aims at what one teacher referred to as "less covert teaching." The Kennedy Improvement Plan guides teachers to change their methods by including strategies that require collaboration within grade level clusters. Weekly cluster meetings now have specific agendas - one week is designated for discussion of student work in mathematics, another for reviewing student work in language arts, and the remaining weeks on researching and compiling teaching resource files. At each meeting, teachers bring samples of student work for discussion among their grade level colleagues. In their discussions, teachers share their best practices and appeal to their colleagues for new ideas. One teacher explained "we're all on the same page now." The implementation of consistent focused teaching is highly likely to support improved student achievement.

Changes in the use of cluster meeting time and new directions in the content covered in classes are strategies that have already been implemented this school year. The Kennedy Improvement Plan also refers to strategies for improving teaching practice that will be developed throughout the course of the year. These include a resource file for mathematics terminology, ideas for teaching students to communicate their mathematical thinking, and methods for teaching inferential thinking. Learning Disabilities and Resource Room teachers are actively involved in providing additional training to regular classroom teachers to enrich their repertoire of teaching tools.

The third type of strategy for improvement included in the Kennedy Plan are those allowing more frequent monitoring of student progress toward the skills and knowledge standards defined in the state and district frameworks. Many of the areas of weak student achievement are associated with writing, so Kennedy cluster teachers recognized the need for a common scoring rubric. Teachers in the 3-5 cluster have volunteered to develop and pilot a rubric which will be presented to the faculty for their review. Primary and middle school cluster teachers can adapt the rubric for use with their own students. As the school begins to gather and analyze data on individual student progress toward proficiency in state standards, teachers will have an even richer source of data to guide their teaching.

To promote the implementation of each of the strategies designed to improve student performance, the principal has incorporated accountability for improvement efforts into her review of teachers' professional growth plans. She has asked teachers to define explicitly the steps they are taking to support the school's improvement efforts. A teacher commented, "Autonomous teaching is fading. We're working toward one purpose now." The sense of camaraderie and collegial support within the building complement the Principal's actions.

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

The most compelling evidence that the revised Kennedy Improvement Plan document is clear and specific are the comments from students about the work they do in class. In interviews with teachers and students and in the observations of Kennedy classes, the strategies described in the improvement document are being implemented widely and have become a regular part of daily life at Kennedy.

Students said the work is "harder this year." They describe how their teachers "show us what to do - over and over not just once." They complain that they have more homework and that they learn about math and English in physical education class. Their complaints are tinted with pride, however, when they share with the interviewer the persuasive essays they wrote about dodge ball. Seventh grade students speak knowledgeably about the fifth grade graphs on bean bag relays posted on the gym wall, explaining that the seventh grade graphs are much more sophisticated but not yet ready for posting.

Evidence of more explicit teaching came from student interviews also. One student reported, "My teacher makes me feel confident that I'll do well on MCAS" because her teacher explains what the class will be learning each day and why students need to learn this material. Students agreed when one mentioned that teachers "make learning fun and interesting."

"Math walls" in classrooms and terminology sections in student notebooks provide concrete evidence of the consistent implementation of Kennedy Improvement Plan strategies. Science, music, and art teachers include explicit vocabulary study as part of their lessons. Student notebooks have definitions for 'matter,' 'mass,' 'contour,' and 'quarter note.'

Teachers described the rich professional discussions they have at weekly cluster meetings as they share student work samples. One teacher noted that others had approached him for advice on structuring a graphing unit since he had recently shared his lessons at a cluster meeting.

In addition to the content and method changes defined in the Kennedy Improvement Plan document, there are several indications that the improvement planning process and the associated data analysis are becoming part of the regular routine among staff and administrators at the school. Members of the Kennedy data team vividly described their excited anticipation of the soon to be released 2001 MCAS report. They are anxious to conduct an item analysis on the new set of data to see if patterns of performance remain the same or vary from the previous year's results.

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

Three factors validate the Panel's judgment that the Kennedy School Improvement Plan was developed through a process that will support its successful implementation: (a) frequent communication between planning team members and faculty and parents; (b) meaningful participation by faculty in development of the objectives and strategies that form the basis of the plan; and (c) critical support and collaboration of the school district central office.

The Kennedy School Improvement Plan is the product of the work of at least three committees: the Spring '01 Steering Committee, the math curriculum review committee and the School Improvement Team (data team). The Steering Committee included 25 members, 50% parents and community members and 50% staff. Staff members on the Steering Committee reported on the findings of the committee at weekly faculty meetings, regularly scheduled for the day following the Monday evening Steering Committee sessions. As the Steering Committee proceeded with its research and assessments of the programs and practices at Kennedy, faculty members had frequent opportunities to become familiar with the topics under review. Parent representatives on the Steering Committee reported to the parent teacher organization. The mathematics curriculum review committee engaged a more focused group of participants, namely teachers of mathematics at several grade levels and district mathematics resource personnel. Faculty at several grade levels conducted the program audit and constructed the schoolwide scope and sequence to identify gaps and repetitions in content coverage. The Committee shared its findings with the full faculty as it continued its research on alternative programs that could be instituted building-wide.

The School Improvement Team (data team) continued the ongoing data analysis work begun in September 2000. They engaged the faculty in a preliminary analysis of the factors directly related to student performance and participated in the school improvement planning process training offered by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in May and June, 2001. The data team extended the preliminary analysis completed by the full faculty to a greater level of detail, graphing and charting an MCAS item analysis for the most recent test results. As described in a previous section of this report, the data team shared the charts and graphs directly with the Kennedy faculty, inviting the staff to draw their own conclusions based on the data represented by the team's charts. Further ownership by the full faculty was encouraged when the data team asked the teachers to define the strategies that would best lead to improved student performance. The final Revised Kennedy School Improvement Plan is a product of the full participation of the classroom teachers, resource teachers, special subjects teachers, and aides and paraprofessionals.

¹ Letter to Principal Rivera-Torres, cc Superintendent D'alessandro, April 26, 2001

Panel Reponses to the Key Questions

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

There is ample evidence that the conditions are in place to support the successful implementation of the Revised Kennedy School Improvement Plan - in fact, the strategies defined in the plan have already been implemented widely with clear impact on students. School leaders, including both administrators and teacher-leaders, are promoting a unified vision and common purpose focused intently on supporting student learning. Generous commitment of personnel and resources by the Cambridge School District contributes to the likelihood of success.

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

The Kennedy School continues to have strong administrative leadership. Throughout her tenure, the Principal has nurtured a collaborative culture with an emphasis on collective responsibility for student success. In many interviews, panelists noted the use of "we" as the pronoun describing the school's work: Teachers explain, "We identified the strategies for improving instruction." "We worked through the item analysis, and we saw where our teaching has to change." The Principal noted, "We came together to decide how to make this work." No one indicated they felt that decisions were imposed on them without their agreement. The Principal's ability to empower teachers and teacher-leaders has led to broad distribution of responsibility for the school's improvement plan.

The Principal has also taken steps to incorporate accountability for implementation of the school's improvement strategies into the teacher evaluation process. Teachers are required to submit professional growth plans, and the Principal asked teachers to include a description of how they intend to bring the Kennedy improvement plan into their practice. The Principal returned a few of the proposals to teachers for clarification, but, for the most part, teachers provided clear descriptions of positive actions they will take to support Kennedy students.

The gradual transition from a retiring vice-principal who is held in highest regard by the school community - parents, staff, students, and alumni - to a newly appointed vice principal (also a veteran member of the Kennedy staff) has been handled smoothly by all involved. The separation of the Kennedy and Amigos programs has been stressful for the staff in the building, so the smooth turnover in building leadership has helped maintain stability and continuity.

The Kennedy school community benefits from the presence of remarkable teacher-leaders. A variety of members of the School Council, the committee reviewing the mathematics program, the Steering Committee and the School Improvement Team have made significant contributions to the ongoing improvement process at the Kennedy School. Experienced veteran staff members, as well as novice teachers, collaborate on projects essential to maintain the quality of the school's programs. The talent, skill and commitment of these staff members contribute to the likelihood of success of the school's plans.

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

The Panel visiting the Kennedy School on October 24 discovered that the strategies listed in the Revised Kennedy School Improvement Plan are already being widely and faithfully implemented. In each class, teachers spent at least some time attending to terminology or vocabulary, covering 'matter' and 'mass' in science, rhyming synonyms in music, 'contour' in art, and graphing terms in gym. Every student carried a terminology notebook, or showed a section of a math journal or science notebook that was marked off for the creation of a common glossary. Students showed (and complained about!) requirements that they write extended responses and reports not only in Literary Studies class but also in math, science, art, physical education, and humanities/ Core Knowledge classes. Teachers spoke articulately about the elements of the revised improvement plan, using language that suggests an in-depth understanding of the relationships between their analysis of MCAS scores and students' activities in the classroom.

The panel made an important observation about the assimilation of the planning process within regular school practice. Teacher members of the data team commented how anxious they were to "get their hands on" the newest MCAS data, expected to be released any day. When asked why, the team members explained they wanted to see if the patterns they discovered among last years' scores hold true for their most recent graduates. They wanted to confirm their predictions of student strengths and weaknesses and test their skill and understanding of their students' skills.

Additional evidence of faculty support was abundant. The panelists heard teachers say, "I contributed to this document. I own this process." When asked what is being done with reluctant participants, the School Council members looked sincerely puzzled and searched for a response. Finally, one teacher spoke up, "There ARE no reluctant teachers. Everyone accepts responsibility for the success of our students." Throughout the visit, the panelists heard grade 6-8 faculty members in individual interviews and focus groups name the same problem areas and articulate their particular role in implementing the plan's improvement strategies.

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

The Cambridge School District has contributed personnel and resources to the development of the Revised Kennedy School Improvement Plan. The Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum served as a liaison to Kennedy and as a Kennedy team member on the 'data team' that attended the ESE training sessions. She worked with the school team to dissect each MCAS item and identify areas needing improvement. With the support of the district data staff, the district liaison provided Kennedy with an analysis of the Stanford 9 reading test administered each fall. While the Stanford 9 analysis did not prove helpful in identifying specific student strengths and weaknesses, the Assistant Superintendent's participation in the school's improvement planning process provided a closer link and better communication between the district and the school.

The Kennedy School Improvement Plan fits within the 11 goals and 4 priorities set by the Cambridge District. There are district initiatives to develop common curriculum elements within a fairly generous site-based decision making system. This is a critical issue for Kennedy teachers, because, as a 'choice' district, students in Cambridge can choose to enroll at or withdraw from Kennedy with wide freedom. Mobility among the student population even within the district impedes the school's ability to maintain a reliable information system describing student strengths and weaknesses. As the Kennedy faculty learned through their recent analysis, accurate assessment information is crucial to effective diagnosis of student needs and focused instructional planning. The school conducts several intake assessments with students new to the school, but there is not a common district-wide process to track individual students as they move from school to school. Extensive conversations are underway at the district level to address the impact of student mobility on program and instructional decision-making.

In addition to the help of the Assistant Superintendent, Kennedy teachers on the math committee had the assistance of district curriculum staff in their audit of current programs and selection of a uniform K-5 program. The district offers professional development opportunities linked to its goals and priorities, and there is flexibility for Kennedy staff to take advantage of additional professional growth opportunities. Monthly district-wide subject area meetings provide a forum for middle grades teachers of science, math, language arts and social studies to collaborate with their colleagues on curriculum issues. District Title I programs coordinate with building Title I specialists.

Within the framework of goals and priorities provided by the district, the Kennedy school has a significant amount of autonomy for the design and implementation of its improvement strategies. As described previously, Kennedy teachers selected the strategies to improve student achievement. A grant provides a math facilitator to assist Kennedy teachers as they implement the new math program which includes teaching strategies that parallel the improvement efforts identified in the plan. While the district's Stanford summary was comprehensive, the Kennedy staff found the wall charts and tables constructed by the data team to be most meaningful and helpful in identifying the specific areas of instruction that needed adjustment.

Implementation of the Kennedy improvement strategies remains the responsibility of the teachers at the school. While the district framework is helpful and the district resources are essential to the school's work, Kennedy teachers recognize that the effectiveness of the improvement plan will be determined by the quality of the plan's implementation in each classroom. Kennedy teachers have already demonstrated their unity of vision and personal commitment to the designated strategies. In the judgment of the Review Panel, there is a strong likelihood that student achievement at Kennedy will improve as a result of the personal effort and professional skill of the teachers and administrators. Both the school and the Superintendent commented that dramatic increases are not realistic in the short term, but they expressed optimism that the Kennedy strategies will improve student learning in specific and measurable ways.

Conclusion

The Kennedy school has constructed and implemented a sound plan for improving student performance. The strategies described in the plan are directly linked to factors influencing student performance identified through a comprehensive review of program and performance data. The improvement strategies involve changes in emphasis on topics within the curriculum and alternative methods of instruction that focus on specific student weaknesses. The Kennedy plan was developed through a process that involved broad stakeholder input and extensive commitment from the faculty.

In the judgment of the Panel Review team, the conditions are in place for the successful implementation of the Kennedy School Improvement Plan. At this early stage in the implementation process, there is abundant evidence that teaching has changed and that students are engaged in activities likely to lead to improved achievement of state standards. The collective influence of strong building leadership, skillful and knowledgeable teacher-leaders, and supportive district administrators contribute to the conclusion that the Kennedy plan will lead to improved student performance.

Appendix A
Team Members

Dr. Karen Laba, Panel Chairperson, Project Manager, SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA 01915

Dr. Julia Phelps, Coordinator of Curriculum, Amesbury School District, Amesbury, MA

Robert Boule, Quadrant Manager, Worcester School District, Worcester, MA

Ann Bradshaw, Assistant Superintendent, Falmouth Public Schools, Falmouth MA

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