Report of the School Panel Review of the Dr. A. B. Consentino Middle School, Haverhill, MA

Introduction

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 Consentino School was one of twelve Massachusetts middle schools meeting this criterion that were selected for panel reviews in spring, 2001. The review of Consentino Middle School was conducted on March 20, 2001.

The review panel's charge was to analyze data and written information on the school's performance and improvement efforts, 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. 1. Does the school have a sound plan for improving student performance?
2. 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 that defined the scope of its 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. A list of panel members who participated in the Consentino Middle School 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, together with school performance data, in determining whether the Consentino Middle 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.

Consentino Middle School Profile

The Consentino Middle School is one of four Haverhill middle schools serving students in grades six through eight. In 2000, the school enrolled 764 students, 47 percent of whom were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The school reported that 22 percent spoke a first language other than English, and it identified four percent as Limited English Proficient. In addition, the school reported that 71 percent of the students were white, 23 percent were Hispanic, four percent were African-American, and three percent were Asian.

In 1999 (the most recent year's data available to the panel), students missed on average 14 days of school, for a daily attendance rate of 92.0 percent. The school reported that no students have dropped out during the past five years. In 2000, 106 students (13.9%) received one or more out-of-school suspensions, which was the highest rate in the district. In addition, 90 students (11.8%) were suspended in-school one or more times. The Consentino reported two incidents of student exclusion in 2000. No student retentions were reported during the past three years.

Staffing

Consentino's students are taught by 67 full-time teachers and 14 teacher's aides for an approximate average pupil-to-teacher ratio of 11 to 1. The central staff consists of Principal Roland E. Boucher, two assistant principals, one additional administrator (Director of TBE), two guidance counselors, two part-time school psychologists, two school adjustment counselors, two nurses, and a librarian/media specialist. Of the 67 full-time teachers, 45 (67%) have attained a master's degree. Of the seven teachers of mathematics and general science, the school reported that two hold degrees in their subject and three are certified in their subject. Three other teachers were reported as holding general elementary or middle school teaching certificates.

MCAS Results

Overall MCAS results showed a decline in 1999 and in 2000 were nearly identical to baseline scores. In comparing the 1998 baseline score to the 1999 and 2000 average, scores were flat in English Language Arts, decreased by two points in Mathematics, and increased by one point in Science & Technology. In 2000, 26 percent scored in the Failing performance level in English Language Arts, 70 percent scored in Failing in Mathematics, and 58 percent scored in Failing in Science & Technology. Overall MCAS participation rates have decreased since 1998 because the participation rate of special education students dropped from 100 percent in the baseline year to 88 percent in 2000.

Panel Responses To The Key Questions

Key Question 1: does The School Have A Sound Plan For Improving Student Performance?

While there are a myriad of school improvement initiatives, there is not a current, formal school improvement plan document with clear goals, measurable benchmarks, timelines, identified resources and responsible parties that could be identified as a "sound plan."

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

There are multiple examples of promising analyses of student achievement data. Eighth grade MCAS results are reviewed first by a district-based analysis team and then by a building-based team. Recommendations from both analyses are shared with teachers at faculty meetings and monthly curriculum meetings. These efforts have resulted in the re-mapping of some aspects of the curriculum in order to address gaps indicated by student achievement.

The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) is given at the seventh grade level. The District provides the school with its own analysis of ITBS achievement trends in reading, language and mathematics. The district also administers an annual writing assessment in grades six through eleven, which is graded by a team of local teachers. Finally, teachers also have the option to administer the Gates-MacGinitie to assess reading skills.

These assessment practices provide useful data for improvement planning, but their potential is not maximized at this time because present reporting (with the exception of MCAS) does not disaggregate data for the significant populations of students at the school. These populations include a large percentage of special education students and a large percentage of students for whom English is an additional language. Without further disaggregation of data, it is difficult for these promising assessment practices to inform the school of how well it serves its diverse population of students.

There are several examples of the school collecting useful data about the conditions leading to improved student achievement. As part of a multi-year focus on improving attendance rates and lowering suspension rates, the school has paid particular attention to these trends and has taken steps resulting in three-year improvement trends in each area. Parents are surveyed about the school's performance every other year.

There is presently no formal evaluation of the various programs in the building and how they work together. At present the Consentino Middle School houses the district's Transitional Bilingual Education program, two programs for developmentally delayed students, a behavior modification program, and an Integrated Special Education class for grade 6. All of these programs serve students from across the district, and there are no similar programs at the district's other middle schools. On an informal basis, the Superintendent, district personnel, the Principal, and the Faculty note the diversity of students as a strength of the school and a source of deep pride. At the same time, there is a recognition that this concentration of programs at one school may not be the most advantageous approach to meet all students needs because it creates an unusual set of administrative and instructional demands. Based on this informal analysis, the Superintendent indicates that some programs will be redistricted to provide a more equitable distribution among the district's middle schools.

B. Does the plan set out a course of action that is: (1) responsive to the school's analysis of the nature and reasons for poor student performance, and (2) likely to lead to improved student results?

At present, there is a collection of relevant school improvement documents but no formal and current school improvement plan. The school did complete an improvement plan for the 1999-2000 school year but was not required to submit a new plan for 2000-2001 because leadership at the district level was in transition during the spring of 2000. The present Superintendent indicates that school improvement planning is coming back into focus for the district as a whole. The task at hand is to provide schools with an improvement plan template for use this spring and to eventually link schools' plans with the ongoing district improvement process that is defining student achievement goals and benchmarks at this time.

In the absence of a formal, current plan, the school does have a number of improvement documents including, the 1999-2000 school improvement plan, the Site Council's working draft of an improvement plan which is in an early stage of development, district and building-based recommendations from MCAS and ITBS analysis, and a set of school goals listed in the new faculty handbook. The most widely acknowledged improvement initiatives in response to identified needs are represented in the following table.

The actions specifically relating to improved student readiness through better attendance and lower suspension rates have already yielded positive results. These results are recognized by students, teachers, parents and administration as important steps forward in creating a good opportunity for all students to learn.

Initiatives focused specifically on English and mathematics are mixed in terms of results and somewhat lacking in the area of mathematics. The John Collins writing program appears to be taking root in the school, and teachers are optimistic about its eventual effect on student performance. District personnel, building administrators and teachers indicate that the multi-year work on curriculum alignment has produced a more coherent and comprehensive educational program. Improving reading skills, particularly for students who are performing below grade level, is one of the most important goals of the Site Council and generally shared by faculty members. In response, the school explored a number of reading programs and proposed one for this school year. However, the program was not funded, and due to significant budgetary constraints across the district, the school does not expect it to be funded next year.

At the district level, a new mathematics program at the elementary level was piloted and is now being implemented. At the middle school level, the introduction of new curriculum is still at the piloting stage. In his Leadership Report, the Principal notes that it has been difficult to secure certified math instructors and that this is a significant issue affecting the school's math program.

Under the initiative of the Principal, the school is piloting instruction with heterogeneous student groups at all grade levels. This is a logical and promising action to address the needs of a student population with a diverse set of academic strengths and needs. There is no formal assessment of the program at this time, so it is difficult to know its success. Anecdotally, teachers, students, and parents expressed a balance of support and reservations about the initiative to the Panel members. While the Principal has provided strong leadership for this initiative, one challenge it faces is the availability of systemic professional development about how to work with heterogeneous groups. This is needed for teachers making the transition from homogeneous grouping.

Panelists expressed mixed views of the ability of present improvement activities to yield improved student progress. Some judged that the present collection of improvement activities lacked sufficient focus, cohesion and coordination to be likely to yield better results. Others held that what is mainly lacking is a formal improvement planning process that would bring present efforts into better focus.

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

There is no formal, current school improvement process that can be evaluated to specifically address this question. In its general practice, the school and district do involve parents and faculty in designing improvement efforts. For example, teachers are involved in MCAS analysis teams, curriculum meetings that use student performance data to identify and correct gaps in programming, and the informal review of pilot programs such as heterogeneous grouping. Parents are surveyed for their input and are actively involved on the Site Council. In anticipation of a new planning template from the central district office, the Site Council recently began to formulate its assessment of key issues for improvement.

D. Is the School Improvement Plan document clear and specific?

In the absence of a current plan, the Panel reviewed the 1999-2000 plan's format to answer this question. The 1999-2000 school improvement plan lacks many of the components that would make it a useful guide for school improvement efforts. The plan does not provide a clear analysis of the issues addressed, specific measurable goals with benchmarks and timelines, lists or resources needed, or personnel responsible. It is not clear what components will be a part of the District's new improvement planning template. The Superintendent stated that a new template for planning will be provided soon so that schools can submit a new plan by May but that it had not been designed as of date of the panel review.

Key Question 2: Are The Conditions In Place For The Successful Implementation Of The Improvement Plan?

The conditions for successfully implementing improvement initiatives appear in place, although there are significant concerns about funding across the district. The leadership at the school has the confidence of the vast majority of stakeholders and has proven itself capable of undertaking significant change efforts.

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

The school's Principal in genuinely respected and admired by faculty, district personnel, parents and students. He communicates effectively and leads with confidence and purpose. Students report that he is responsive to their needs and establishes a safe environment for their learning. Adults report that the principal is an organized and proactive leader.

He has approached improving school performance in two stages, first creating the proper pre-conditions for learning and second creating the proper instructional program. Focusing on the former, he began his improvement efforts by creating programs to address low attendance and high suspension rates. Both of these programs are showing results. He also took the initiative with the Site Council to redesign the parent conference process to increase attendance. This resulted in a 26% gain in attendance of parents at conferences. He is now exhibiting strong instructional leadership by guiding the faculty in examining grouping practices and piloting heterogeneous grouping as a key step in improving instruction. With his administrative team, he has restructured the sixth grade teaming so that it creates an easier transition for students moving from the elementary to middle school setting. The Principal also models the school's pride in its diversity and accomplishments. As stated by a district colleague, "He is here because he wants to be here, and we want him here."

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

Although there is not a formal school improvement plan, there is evidence that the Faculty and the Administration share a common understanding of the school's strengths and challenges and that the Faculty supports existing improvement initiatives. For example, both teacher surveys and interviews, and the Principal's leadership report concur on some of the key challenges facing the school: 1) while a source of pride, the diversity of academic needs in one building, 2) improving student readiness for school through better climate and higher attendance, 3) creating a more rigorous and aligned curriculum through mapping, 4) addressing reading and writing skills.

Over the last several years, the Administration has shown the capacity to design and successfully implement initiatives with the Faculty including the restructuring of 6th grade grouping, piloting heterogeneous grouping and implementing an in-house suspension program. It is also important to note the strong school pride and concern for all students that is remarkably evident when talking with teachers and administrators in the school. In the opinion of the Panel, these historical facts and the faculty's confidence in leadership indicate that they will support a formal school improvement plan once put in place.

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

The District has provided good leadership in several curricular areas. Most notable has been the progress made on developing curriculum maps. During monthly curriculum meetings, teachers look at student performance data and address curriculum gaps based on that data. The district is also involved in an ongoing process to upgrade curriculum materials, such as a new math program, which is now in a pilot phase at the middle school. The John Collins Writing program also represents a systemic approach to addressing curricular and instructional needs.

The District also appears prepared to provide leadership in creating a more equitable distribution of programs among the district's middle schools. The present Superintendent recognizes that the concentration of special programs at the Consentino Middle School may not be the optimal approach to meeting all students' needs and in principle is committed to the redistribution of some programs.

The present Superintendent also recognizes that during the last several years in which there has not been consistent district leadership, the District has not provided sufficient support and direction in school improvement planning. His long-term plan is to address this need through a district-wide improvement planning process that will link to school improvement plans. This process is underway. The School Board has committed to four key areas of focus: improving relationships, building utilization, defining student achievement, and re-establishing the high school's NEASC accreditation. At present, a committee of community members, district personnel, building administrators, and teachers is defining student achievement goals that will eventually inform all school improvement plans. However, this process will not be completed by May. The Superintendent will provide a planning template to the schools to use for this May.

In terms of financial support for improvement initiatives, the district is facing significant cuts. These cuts may jeopardize some existing programming at the school as well as make new initiatives difficult, if not impossible, to fund.

Conclusion

While there are a myriad of school improvement initiatives, there is not a current, formal school improvement plan document with clear goals, measurable benchmarks, timelines, identified resources and responsible parties that could be identified as a "sound plan." Some of the promising components that are likely to become part of a formal process include a number of good data collection and analysis practices, involvement of faculty and parents in planning improvements, and a history of individual and building level initiative to address needs. At this time, however, these practices are not linked in a formal school improvement process.

The conditions for successfully implementing improvement initiatives appear in place, although there are significant concerns about funding across the district. The leadership at the school has the confidence of the vast majority of stakeholders and has proven itself capable of undertaking significant change efforts. What is lacking now is a formal process to focus improvement efforts. District leadership is stabilizing and appears ready to address the significant need to redistribute some of the programs presently housed at the Consentino School. In terms of support, the district is facing significant budgetary challenges, and it is not clear as of the panel review what level of funding support will be available for new improvement initiatives or even to maintain present programming.

Appendix A

Team Members

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

Jason Kingston, Panel Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Accountability and Technical Assistance

Joanna McInnis, Panelist, Director of Elementary Curriculum, Revere Public Schools, Revere, Massachusetts

Carol Keirstead, Panelist, Research Associate, RMC Research, Portsmouth, New Hampshire

David Deschamps, Classroom Teacher, Hardwick Elementary School, Gilbertville, MA

Appendix B

Evaluating School Performance Detailed Schedule for Review Panel School Site Visit

The times specified on the following schedule may be adjusted slightly to align with the daily schedule and practices in each of the schools being reviewed.

Please inform all school faculty and students that Review Panel members will be visiting a cross-section of classrooms during the site visit. The selection of classrooms will be determined mutually by the Panel Review Coordinator and the Principal using the staff directory information provided by the school. All faculty members are asked to be prepared to accommodate a visitor on the morning of the site visit. Panel members will make every effort to minimize the disruption of planned classroom activities.