Report of the School Panel Review of the Normandin Junior High School, New Bedford, 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 Normandin Junior High School was one of twelve Massachusetts middle schools meeting this criterion that were selected for panel reviews in spring, 2001. The review of Normandin Junior High School was conducted on February 27, 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. 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 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 Normandin 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 Normandin 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.

Normandin JR. High School Profile

Normandin Jr. High is the largest of New Bedford's three junior high schools, with 899 students enrolled in grades seven and eight in 2000. In that year, just over half (56%) of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 18 percent spoke a first language other than English. No students were identified as Limited English Proficient. The school reported that the student population was predominantly white (78%) with sizable Hispanic (15%) and African-American (6%) populations.

On average students missed 14 days of school in 1999 (the most recent year's data available to the panel), for a daily attendance rate of 92.4 percent. During that same year, 163 students (18%) received out-of-school suspensions, while 182 (20%) were suspended in school, serving in what the school refers to as an "Alternative to Suspension" program. No students were excluded for more than 10 days. Additionally in 1999, one student dropped out and 35 (3.9%) were retained in grade.

Staffing

Normandin's students are taught by 69 full-time teachers, for an approximate average pupil to teacher ratio of 13 to 1. The central staff consists of Principal Robert A. Jeffrey, an assistant principal and three guidance counselors. Of the 69 teachers, 17 (25%) have attained a master's degree. Of the 23 math or general science teachers, six were reported as holding a bachelor's or master's degree in their subject, and 11 possess math or science teaching certificates.

MCAS Results

Overall MCAS results have declined over the past three years. In each content area the 1998 baseline scores were higher than the 1999 and 2000 averages. Student scores fell by one point in English Language Arts and by four points in both Mathematics and Science & Technology. Approximately two-thirds of Normandin's students scored in the Failing performance level in Mathematics and Science & Technology in the past two years, up from 58 percent in 1998. Approximately one-fourth scored in the Failing level in English Language Arts. It should be noted that the proportion of 8th grade identified as special education students on the MCAS nearly doubled between 1998 and 1999, while participation of SPED students in MCAS remained high.

Panel Responses To The Key Questions

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

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

The school recently completed a comprehensive item analysis of MCAS scores but not all stakeholders were involved in the analysis or in an interpretation of the data. District level department heads and the school administrators completed item analyses for the three junior high schools in the district. The summaries were shared with junior high faculty at a recent professional development day, and Normandin teachers commented during the Panel Review that they were able to clearly identify curriculum areas that needed more attention. It was unclear to the team whether Special Education, ESL/ Title I, or special subject teachers were involved in the analysis or how the analysis involved parents. Stanford 9 test results were also analyzed by District level staff and returned to the school for review.

While school administrators have completed analyses of test data to identify gaps in student performance, the Panel found that the school has not yet completed an analysis of its programs and practices to identify the reasons for poor student performance. The Action Plan and its supporting documents describe intentions to align curriculum with the State frameworks, but school and district administrators were not able to cite evidence about current curriculum topics or explain whether curriculum misalignment is closely associated with gaps in student performance. It does not appear that school leaders have determined how staffing qualifications or staffing assignments might be related to student achievement, or examined current instructional practices to link them with specific student needs.

Teachers and parents identified several program areas likely to be related to poor student performance, but these areas are not highlighted in the school's current Action Plan. Both groups expressed serious concerns about the differentiation of instruction in heterogeneous classrooms and about the need to enhance parent involvement in supporting student learning. The current Action Plan does not focus on these areas that parents and teachers find important. A comprehensive program assessment at the school level would clarify which programs and practices are supporting student achievement and which may be hindering their growth.

In the judgment of the Review Panel, without a comprehensive analysis of program issues, the school cannot accurately identify the reasons why student performance has failed to improve. The MCAS item analysis clearly indicates specific content areas and skills where students need to improve, but the school cannot cite evidence linking these areas of student weakness with specific instructional practices or program components that might be contributing to declining student achievement.

As mentioned in the response above (1A), the school has not identified the reasons for poor student performance at Normandin Junior High School. As a consequence, the strategies defined in its Action Plan are disconnected from a clear understanding of the reasons for students' scores. The Action Plan lists broad goals for curriculum alignment and improved student performance, but it does not define specific action steps that are likely to lead to achievement of the goals.

The current Action Plan reflects an attempt to focus on teaching and learning. The "Instruction" section of the English/Language Arts Action Plan proposes to use the strategies "improve comprehension skills," "increase word recognition," and "continue to model open response questions." In the Mathematics Instruction section, the school lists strategies including "increase student understanding of algebraic concepts," "continue to model steps to solve open-response problems," and "increasing professional development in content and pedagogy." Each of these strategies connects directly with classroom instruction, a key area identified by the Principal as needing improvement.

While the strategies listed in the most recent Action Plan refer to research-based techniques and programs, the school's reasons for selecting these specific strategies are unclear and unfocused. As a result, they may or may not yield positive results. Specifically, the Review Panel members recognize that the key to the success of a particular improvement effort depends on the match between the school's or the student's needs and the strategy, as well as on the quality of the improvement effort's implementation. The Review Panel determined that the school has not accurately identified the specific needs of its staff or its students, and it is unclear whether the school is prepared to accommodate for and provide the intensive training and ongoing support required for each of its new initiatives.

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

The present January 2001 - June 2002 Action Plan was developed by the Principal, Department Heads and a few representative faculty, with little input from other stakeholders. As reported to the Review Panel, the current document was completed in one week then shared with School Council members for their examination. Faculty members explained that they were given a copy of the current document at a recent staff meeting. Parents and teachers were not involved in the development of the plan or in a discussion of the initiatives that would be selected for implementation.

The successful implementation of the current Action Plan is in doubt considering that it does not accurately reflect the central concerns of many stakeholders. At the Parent Focus Group, participants expressed passionate support for the school's 'Gear-Up' program, a school wide project that encourages students to aim for high goals and to prepare for a productive future. The school's current Action Plan does not mention extending the positive impact of successful projects like Gear-Up. Parents also expressed passionate concern about the school's methods of providing for the academic needs of students with varying ability levels. Teachers mentioned similar concerns about the challenges of providing meaningful instructional experiences for students with a wide range of needs. . Parents' and teachers' concerns about the differentiation of instruction are only minimally addressed in the most recent Action Plan. In both Focus Group interviews and in the staff survey, teachers mentioned large class sizes as a serious barrier to improving student achievement. Teachers reported that class sizes can vary, but that they are quite often in the upper 20s, and many classrooms are cramped for space to hold their full roster. The Action Plan does not address this critical structural concern, and several teacher comments suggest that without functional class sizes, teachers would be unable to implement many new initiatives.

The Action Plan's successful implementation is also doubtful because it does not contain provisions for ongoing evaluation and teachers' concerns about differentiated instruction. Many of the strategies mentioned in the newest Normandin Action Plan were also components of previous plans. Neither the school nor the district carried out systematic study of the impact of these strategies on student performance. During the term of the previous Action Plan, the only evaluation of the individual strategies and goals occurred during principals' yearly performance reviews. Because of the lack of ongoing evaluation, the school cannot predict with confidence whether the LINKS program, for instance, is having a positive impact on student achievement and whether it should be continued. The Review Panel worries that without intermediate benchmarks and checkpoints and systematic assessments, the new strategies as well as the continuing initiatives may not bring about the desired improvement of student performance.

In the present Action Plan, provisions for professional development are inadequate to build capacity among the staff to sustain the desired changes. The introductory section of the current Action Plan lists over 15 distinct changes to school programs and practices, many of which require significant adjustment for teachers. For example, the transition to a middle school structure three years in the future will require teachers to function effectively in cross-disciplinary teams. The Normandin Action Plan does not explain how the school or the district intends to provide adequate assistance for teachers to collaborate on thematic units, use common planning time effectively, or design instruction suited to a schedule with variable instructional time. School leaders explained that they intend to learn from the experience of another district school that is undergoing the middle school transition in the coming year, but the lack of specificity in the Normandin Action Plan means that it cannot serve its purpose as a guide for school improvement.

D. Is the School Improvement Plan document clear and specific

In its present form, the Normandin School Action Plan lacks the level of detail and the clarity of purpose to make it a useful document to guide school reform efforts. In particular, the absence of a meaningful investigation of the specific factors hindering student achievement makes it impossible for the plan's authors to measure the impact of their recommended strategies on student achievement. The strategies named to achieve each goal are complex activities, requiring the involvement of many staff members, but the plan does not define a realistic timeline or propose a sequence of tasks that lend confidence that the strategy will be effectively implemented.

To evaluate the success of some of the steps in its plan, the school intends to review MCAS scores for 2001 and 2002, which will not be available until well into the following school year. No intermediate benchmarks or checkpoints are included to monitor efforts along the way, raising the likelihood that the school will be unable to evaluate the effectiveness of its various changes. The list of "Resources Required" within each goal is meager and does not reflect a clear understanding of the complex and time-consuming process of instructional change. The plan does not indicate whether resources have been allocated for ongoing support, an essential element in complex change processes.

In many interviews, the Panel members were told that the current Action Plan is a "work in progress." However, the Panelists noted that all assessment indicators for Normandin over the past seven years have indicated low student achievement in all content areas (MEAP, Stanford 9, MCAS). The characterization of the document used to guide improvement efforts as 'incomplete' raised serious concerns among the members of the team.

KEY QUESTION 2: ARE THE CONDITIONS IN PLACE FOR THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN?

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

Every member of the school community - staff, students and parents - spoke with genuine enthusiasm and respect for the school Principal. All expressed confidence in his ability and an appreciation for the changes that have occurred since he began in September 2000. Parents and students described an improved school climate. Staff members praised his consistently high expectations for student behavior and his uniform enforcement of school rules. These changes have enhanced staff morale.

Parents attending the Focus Group on the day of the visit praised the Principal's accessibility and responsiveness to their concerns. They described instances when they called and were able to speak directly with the principal rather than leave a message with a secretary. One parent was impressed with the speed with which the Principal resolved a concern about a behavior problem involving his child. The Focus Group parents, whose children are successful learners, reported that their children enjoy attending school and are advancing academically under the school's guidance.

The leadership culture at Normandin assigns primary decision-making responsibility to the Principal, who communicates his plans with other stakeholders. Teachers described instances when the new principal allowed them to initiate creative projects and encouraged them to propose new ideas, but their description of the process of bringing new ideas to life clearly indicate that the Principal retains control over all aspects of the school. This centralized decision-making process has resulted in positive short-term changes in the school, but it may not be conducive to several of the goals described in the current Action Plan. The Plan mentions the intention to have the teachers "take ownership" of many improvement initiatives, but to the extent the Panel was able to ascertain, few teachers were involved in determining the direction of improvement efforts. Without engaging teachers in the design of new projects, it is unclear how school leaders intend to inspire teacher ownership. The Action Plan also mentions "shared decision making" as an element of its implementation, but the current leadership style may not accommodate that intention, a crucial element in reports of other schools' successful improvement plans.

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

The Normandin faculty are energized by the presence of the new Principal. They were enthusiastic and responsive to ideas for change, citing examples of recent reform projects and optimism for future efforts. They expressed support for the LINKS initiative, begun a year ago and continuing this year, and for the "Gear-Up" program. Teachers in one Focus Group described planning an integrated "crime scene" project linking English and Science activities. Other teachers explained that they were attempting to use common planning time to monitor individual student performance on a daily basis. Some mentioned using different strategies such as daily in-class assessment to reinforce concepts from previous lessons and preview lessons to come. When asked to describe the greatest change they've seen, one teacher enthusiastically claimed, "We now take responsibility for what we do."

A number of responses on the Normandin Faculty Survey differ from the Focus Group's responses to the Panel's questions. When asked what barriers prevent students from attaining high standards, survey respondents frequently mentioned parent or student attitudes as a significant obstacle. In a few instances, teachers mentioned problems with curriculum or leadership as impediments to improvement. Focus Group teachers listed professional development, particularly in the area of differentiating instruction for diverse students, as a critical need. Survey respondents had mixed answers to that question, with fewer than half citing a need for additional training in this area.

An issue of serious concern that is consistent between the focus group teachers and the survey respondents are large class sizes. Teachers reported that typical class sizes range in the 25-30 students, and with the inclusion model for special needs students, the challenges to working with such a large group are tremendous. Teachers' concerns about their ability to provide for individual student needs in such large groups mirror comments from parents on the same topic.

Overall, the Panel developed a clear sense of an energetic, enthusiastic faculty committed to making the changes necessary to help students improve. However, conversations with teachers and their survey responses indicate a lack of detailed understanding of the purposes of many of the strategies listed in the Action Plan, which may limit teachers' ability to implement them effectively. Teachers in one focus group described how discouraged many staff members were when the most recent test scores did not show the improvement they hoped would follow from the many initiatives started during the previous school year. School leaders may expose teachers to additional disappointment if the improvement strategies defined in the Action Plan are not linked to specific student and teacher needs and if sufficient resources will not be available to provide training and support for their implementation.

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

The New Bedford School District is attempting to provide guidance and support to the Normandin Junior High School. The district has provided consultants for the LINKS initiative and it has engaged NELMS to provide assistance for its three junior high schools as they make the transition to middle schools. The district contracted with several consultants in recent years to provide assistance to principals in the development of their school improvement plans.

The Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools has instituted systems that ensure effective communication and coordination of plans and directives from the central office to dept head and principal. Communication with activities at the classroom level is less structured and coordinated. While district administrators described generous allotments of professional development funds, teachers who asked to attend conferences and workshops report they are often told that substitute teacher funds are depleted. Since many of the planned strategies require extensive training and substantial ongoing maintenance, teachers expressed uncertainty that the district would be able to provide sufficient support.

District level staff are responsible for guiding the implementation of many of the change initiatives described in the Action Plan. The four secondary department heads and principals oversaw the initial item analysis for MCAS scores and meetings with the junior high faculty to interpret the MCAS data. They are responsible for identifying specific strategies to address the needs of the staff at each of the three junior high schools as well as the high school. Along with the building principals, Department Heads are responsible for monitoring curriculum, instruction and assessment among all four buildings. To complement this supervisory system, the Normandin Action Plan describes a proposal to hire two expert teacher 'facilitators' for their building to model instructional practices and to assist with the implementation of new programs.

Despite the additional staff, district personnel will be facing significant challenges in order to accomplish the numerous tasks needed for both the middle school transition and the improvement of student achievement. Local staff can be complemented with outside expertise, but sustaining new ideas will require intensive demands on energy, time, and knowledge. The Review Team questions whether the small number of district level staff can meet the extraordinary expectations of the major program initiatives defined in the Normandin Action Plan.

Conclusion

The strategies listed in the Action Plan for the Normandin Junior High School are not clearly linked to the reasons for poor student performance and therefore may or may not lead to the desired improvement. The Normandin faculty and school leaders are energetic and committed to finding ways to help students achieve, but the plan in place does not reflect a realistic understanding of the time and resources needed to achieve its goals.

Appendix A

TEAM MEMBERS

Dr. Laurie Slobody, Normandin Panel Coordinator -- Program Coordinator, Title I and School Improvement and Accountability Initiatives, MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

DR. Karen Laba, Normandin Panel Chairperson - Project Manager, SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA

James Devine, Principal, Federal Street School, Greenfield, MA

Margaret Kelliher, Curriculum Management Director, Springfield Public Schools

Carolyn Richards, Testing and Assessment Coordinator, Lowell Public Schools

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.