Report of the Follow-up School Panel Review of the Normandin Junior High School,
New Bedford, MA

Introduction

The Normandin Junior High 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 Normandin Junior High School's plan for improving student achievement. In particular, panel members found:

The plan is based on an incomplete and vague analysis of relevant data. The panel found that the school's plan does not cite evidence linking identified areas of student weakness with specific instructional practices or program components that might be contributing to declining student achievement.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 Department provided the school with the opportunity to participate in a series of guided school improvement planning sessions in June, August, and September. The Principal and a planning team from the Normandin Junior High 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 Normandin Junior High 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 Normandin Junior High School is deemed to be under-performing.

Normandin Junior High School Profile

Normandin Junior High enrolled 935 students in grades seven and eight as of fall 2001. Fifty-four percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 19 percent spoke a first language other than English. The school identified none of its students as Limited English Proficient and reported that 14 percent were Hispanic, 78 percent were white, and eight percent were African-American.

Students missed on average 15 days of school in 2000-2001, for a daily attendance rate of 91.5 percent. In that same year, 202 students (23%) received out-of-school suspensions, while 128 (15%) were suspended in school. No students were excluded for more than 10 days. Additionally in 2001, one student dropped out, and 10 (1%) were retained in grade.

MCAS Test Results

Cycle I Results

Overall MCAS results declined from 1998-2000. 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 1999 and 2000, 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.

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?

The emphasis of the school improvement plan is to raise academic achievement through strategies that focus predominantly on changes in curriculum, instructional programs and school structures. However, the Panel is concerned that instructional quality is not at the center of the improvement efforts. In turn, improvement efforts are likely to result in only marginal change in overall student performance.

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's analysis has identified key gaps in student performance, curricular and structural issues but has not fully examined the impact of classroom practice. During the end of the 2000-2001 school year, representatives from the school faculty and school site council met in two inquiry groups to analyze MCAS and SAT 9 data for the purpose of developing and refining the school improvement plan. Included in this analysis of testing data were results for incoming 6th graders from each of the feeder elementary schools. The inquiry groups disaggregated the data by Latino students, SPED students, and gender. This disaggregation led to the several realizations about patterns in student performance. For example, in math Latino students were doing worse than the general student population, and SPED students were having problems with open-ended response questions. This data analysis informed the development of the Normandin improvement plan. The work of the inquiry groups led to the development of an action plan that was based on the gaps identified in two priority areas: English and Math. The action plan seeks to make necessary curricular, programmatic and structural changes.

However, the Panel is concerned that the cause of poor student performance has not been analyzed sufficiently because of insufficient review of instructional practice. This has resulted in a school improvement plan that is focused more on curricular and structural changes as opposed to instructional changes. For example, the Inquiry Groups concluded that the high numbers of SPED students, students whose first language is not English (FLNE) and the readiness of students when they enter the Normandin School were some of the root causes of poor student performance. The school has not complemented these and other curricular aspects of its review with a similar rigorous review of its own classroom practices and their potential effect on the performance of SPED and FLNE students.

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 school improvement plan contains broad objectives that are tied to areas of weaknesses and action plans with specific measurable benchmarks. For example, an objective for English Language Arts is "to improve ELA MCAS scores by 20% by June 2003." While these objectives and target dates for improvement are too broad to be useful, the school improvement plan is accompanied by detailed action plans. The action plans' goals and objectives are specific and measurable. An example of an English language arts action plan goal is " students will show improvement in literature with regards to Standards 8, 9 and 15." One of the objectives that corresponds to that goal is "students will identify the basic facts and essential ideas in what they have heard read or viewed."

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

The school improvement plan states two main strategies: 1) Provide more time on learning - (for reading instruction, for vocabulary development for FLNE students; to increase SPED participation in open ended responses --- and 2) Identify incoming students from the feeder schools who are academically at risk. However, a critical review of the school improvement plan reveals three groups of strategies: structural, curricular; and programmatic. While the Panel acknowledges the importance of these strategies, the explicit focus on classroom practice beyond a mention of standards-based and differentiated instruction is missing.

There have been a number of important structural changes. First, the structure of the school day was changed to a 6-day 7-period per day cycle to incorporate a double block of time for English language arts. This will result in a more substantive focus on literacy and literature. In addition, it allows for academic support in the core subject areas and common planning time (CPT) for teachers. Currently, CPT is used to discuss students and anything else that is pertinent at the moment; it is not focused tightly on any specific improvement objective. And while teachers must submit a CPT one-page report detailing the focus of the meeting to the Principal, teachers are still learning how to use this time productively. Teachers interviewed overwhelmingly indicated how critical these structural changes are for the success of the school improvement plan.

In addition to the schedule changes, the Normandin has also changed its staffing structure. Two building level Academic Facilitators have been added and district level Department Chairs have increased their time at the school from once a month to weekly meetings for curriculum and teacher supervision responsibilities. The job description for the newly created Academic Facilitators in math and English includes a range of responsibilities such as interacting with the Assistant Principal regarding discipline and assisting in the implementation of the school improvement plan, to name a few. To date, much of the Academic Facilitators time has been used creating and implementing the new school schedule. In addition, they are working with new teachers, assisting the Department Chairs and are available to address the needs of the Principal on a day-to-day basis. Interviews with the Academic Facilitators indicated the importance of their work to the successful running of the school and an acknowledgement that they "were learning on the job."

The work of the district Department Chairs have been redefined with a clearer responsibility for supporting teachers in the classroom and making the curricular changes. They have aligned the curricula with the state frameworks and developed detailed action plans for math and English. The action plans incorporate the identification of specific curricular strands in which the students are weak, along with recommendations to address these areas. All Normandin staff members have received copies of the school improvement plan and actions plans. Teachers are responsible for developing and delivering standards-based lessons based on these plans. Department Heads and Academic Facilitators check teachers' lesson plans.

There are a number of programmatic changes that are related to the gaps in student performance. MCAS support and academic support classes have been added to the schedule. At-risk incoming students are identified at the beginning of the school year for tutoring. In English Language Arts, literacy classes have been added along with the Wilson Reading and Accelerated Reading Programs for selected students. According to the Principal, academic support classes rely on the existing curriculum adapted by their subject area teachers, and tutoring classes use a short curriculum form to identify what tutoring sessions will cover. However, in the opinion of the panel, these adaptations are insufficient to provide clear and effective instructional guidance to teachers for the specific needs of students who are in academic support and tutoring classes.

The above structural, curricular and programmatic changes represent significant and necessary work by the school community; however, the Panel feels that alone they are not sufficient to lead to sustained improved student results. Again, the Panel is concerned that instructional practice is not adequately addressed in the improvement strategies. For example, the school improvement plan does not identify specific instructional strategies for vocabulary development. There is significant management of classroom practice through the monitoring of lesson plans, and 30 staff participated in a workshop on differentiated instruction, but, during interviews there was little mention of instructional practice. Staff credits the structural changes as the most important focus of the improvement efforts. The Panel believes and research supports that the emphasis needs to go beyond the structural changes to support improved student results.

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

While they do not adequately address instructional issues, the school's written improvement planning document is sufficiently clear to guide implementation efforts. The action plans are specific. They include goals, what data were used to develop the goals, objectives that are linked to the standards, strategies that are already taking place, strategies that are yet to be implemented, responsible parties and time lines. Teachers interviewed mentioned how they use the action plans to guide their lesson planning. One teacher indicated "before this plan, more people strayed … now it is clearer as to what is taught and in what sequence."

The school improvement plan lacks a systematic process for monitoring implementation. While implementation is being monitored by the administration of pre and post-tests for English and math (The pre-tests were administered in October and the post-tests will be given in January 2002.), there is ambiguity about how this data will inform the effectiveness of specific improvement efforts. Evaluation of the plan would benefit from more specific measures linked to each improvement initiative.

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

The development of the school improvement plan was a collaborative process that began in the spring of 2001. Two inquiry groups comprised of approximately 15 faculty members, administration and parents met to analyze MCAS and SAT 9 data and to discuss the root causes for student achievement gaps. During the summer, a subset of the inquiry group members met with ESE for a series of three retreats to review data and prioritize improvement objectives. In October 2001, faculty met for a full day to review the draft plan. Interviews with teachers who did not participate in the summer planning revealed that they were informed about the school improvement plan and essentially agreed with its focus. Despite the fact that two parents from the School Site Council were involved in the development of the plan, evidence from parent interviews suggest that communication to parents is inconsistent. One parent said, "If I'm not on a committee I'm out of the loop." Administrators concur that parent involvement is a concern and are relying on the GEAR UP program to help get more parents involved.

Despite the collaborative school improvement development process, the Panel remains concerned about successful implementation. As stated, the focus of the plan is on structures, curricula and programs, but there has been insufficient analysis of data from classroom practice. Despite the fact that approximately 30 staff participated in the differentiated instruction workshops, professional development is not systematically tied to the goals and objectives of the plan. Every teacher is encouraged to take one workshop in his/her subject area, and professional development offerings are menu-driven. Finally, in the opinion of the Panel, the depth of on-going evaluation beyond the monitoring of lesson plans and CPT is insufficient to gauge successful implementation of strategies learned through this professional development.

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

The conditions are in place for the successful implementation of the school improvement plan; there is a management system in place at the building level and there is sufficient district support.

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

Management is a key feature of the Normandin School. The Principal is a good manager with an emphasis on structures and consistency. For example, there are a number of required templates --- CPT, lesson plans, department agendas, action plans --- to be filled out or signed by teachers that are checked by administrators. The Principal guides the improvement efforts with energy and purpose. He views staff and parental input as a valuable asset to the school. He has an open door policy and interviews with faculty and some parents indicate that the Principal is accessible. In teacher interviews and focus groups, faculty expressed general confidence in the school leadership and the school improvement plan. One teacher remarked, "I am not an island anymore, there is more support from the outside."

The Principal's strength is his solid management style as opposed to his instructional leadership. There are a number of regular meetings where the administration and faculty exchange information. The Principal meets with the faculty monthly and with the Academic Facilitators daily. Department Chairs and faculty meet monthly. During these meetings Departments discuss issues such as curriculum, supplies, assessment, etc. Teachers meet with each other during CPT and team meetings. Instructional leadership lies with the Academic Facilitators and Department Chairs; however the Panel believes that teachers are still not receiving sufficient classroom support to successfully shift to standards-based teaching and implement differentiated instruction effectively.

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

There is strong evidence that the faculty supports the planned improvement efforts. In almost all interviews, faculty mentioned the importance of the schedule change and the curricular alignment efforts as significant strategies for improving student achievement. Faculty interviewed were able to articulate their roles and responsibilities in the improvement efforts. They expressed appreciation for the support from the Principal, Academic Facilitators and Department heads. One teacher remarked, "things are really looking good; every month we see that we are getting closer to our goals."

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

There is strong evidence that the district is providing guidance and support. First, the District is supporting new positions at the Normandin: a mentoring principal from NELMS to work with the Principal and Academic Facilitators; two Academic Facilitators for Math and English to support the implementation of the school improvement plan; a School Resource Officer, a Special Education Department Chairperson and a Special Education Facilitator. In addition, District Department Chairs have increased their time at the school to perform supervisory responsibilities.

The District has spearheaded curricula revisions for all major subject areas. The content has been updated, the format is consistent across subject areas, and standards-based lesson plan templates have been developed. Interviews with the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Instruction indicated that the school improvement process has " teachers at the Normandin focusing on curriculum and instruction and that the teachers now believe that the students can be successful."

The District has made a commitment to the Middle Schools. The newly built Roosevelt Middle School has just opened this school year. Groundbreaking for the Normandin Middle School recently occurred and is scheduled to open in two years. The District has appointed a Special Operations for Building Construction staff member to the Normandin, so the Principal can continue to focus on the school improvement initiative.

Conclusion

The Normandin School has made significant and important steps to improving student achievement. The school has analyzed appropriate data, prioritized school improvement objectives, has faculty ownership for the plan, and administrative support. The school improvement strategies are structural, curricular and programmatic. While these strategies are essential, the Panel has concerns that without a focus on quality instruction, those strategies alone may not be sufficient for sustained gains in student achievement. Finally, there is currently no sufficiently systematic way to assess the implementation of the improvement plan.

Appendix A
Team Members

Dr. Nancy Clair, Panel Chairperson, Consultant for the Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. and SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA.

Tom Buffett, Consultant, SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA.

Dr. Geri Lyn Ajemian, Accountability and Targeted Assistance, ESE, Malden, MA.

Ann Deveney, Senior Program Director, Boston Public Schools

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

¹ Quoted from the Commissioner's letter to the Rebecca Johnson School dated April 26, 2001.