Follow-up School Panel Review Report of the Normandin Junior High School
New Bedford Public Schools
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 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 that the Normandin Junior High School did have a plan for improvement, but the plan was based on "an incomplete and vague analysis of relevant data."
Upon consideration of the panel findings, the commissioner deferred action on the determination of underperformance for a period of six months and provided a $25,000 grant to support planning and school improvement efforts during that time. The principal and a planning team from the Normandin Junior High School participated in a series of facilitated work sessions during June, August and September, at which department technical assistance staff and data analysts guided the school's planning team through an inquiry-based process designed to help them develop a sound plan for improving student performance at their school. At the conclusion of the six-month deferral period, a follow-up review was conducted at the school by a four-member review panel in October, 2001.
The follow-up report contained some positive news indicating that the school had made important progress in staffing structures and the school schedule to increase time on learning in core subject areas. However, the follow-up panel found that the school had not adequately examined the quality of classroom instruction necessary to support increased student achievement. As a result of these findings, the Commissioner gave the school six more months in order to continue its improvement planning work.
On June 10-11, 2002 a three member panel review team returned to conduct the second follow-up review.
The Scope of the Second Follow-up Review Process
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:
- Does the school have a sound plan for improving student performance?
- Are the conditions in place for the successful implementation of the school's improvement plan(s)?
The 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 review is provided in Appendix A. An illustrative 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 Junior High 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 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 15 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. The school qualifies as a school-wide Title I school.
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
2001 was the first year that the Normandin Junior High School showed improvement since the baseline year in the Warning performance level at the 8th grade in English Language Arts, mathematics and history. In 2001, student scores in ELA Warning decreased from 28% in 2000 to 21% in 2001 while the percentage of students scoring in Proficient increased from 29% to 39% during the same period. In mathematics, the Warning rate decreased from 68% in 2000 to 60% in 2001. During this same period, scores in Needs Improvement in mathematics increased from 21% to 32% while scores in Proficient/Advanced decreased from 10% to 8%. The table below shows student performance in English Language Arts and mathematics for 2001.
Panel Reponses to the Key Questions
KEY QUESTION 1: does the School Have a Sound Plan for Improving Student Performance?
The panel review team's responses to Question 1 comment both on the school's written plan and, to a large extent, on the school's actual current improvement work. The written plan(s) does not provide a coherent or cohesive picture of the school's vision, needs, goals, strategies, and methods for evaluating progress. There are at least three formats included in the plan, none of them providing an effective analysis and description of needs the plan is attempting to address. However, despite these weaknesses, other data sources revealed that improvement efforts are in fact underway and these efforts reflect strategies that could have the potential to improve 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 conducted a thorough analysis of test data (MCAS and Stanford 9 (SAT9)) to identify gaps in student learning. With the help of the district's English and Math department heads, a team of volunteer teachers conducted the analysis using the Cognos data system. They also analyzed SAT 9 data from nine feeder schools to determine weaknesses and patterns of performance for entering students. The primary areas of analysis and inquiry were in English and mathematics. Data was disaggregated by ethnicity, special education students, and students whose first language is not English (FLNE). Limited demographic data was also analyzed in an effort to identify needs. School factors considered in the analysis included the school schedule and the English and mathematics curricula. Analyses of staffing and instructional practices were not included. A needs assessment survey of staff was conducted to identify areas in which teachers felt they needed training.
Based on their analysis of MCAS and SAT 9 data, school planning team members identified specific areas of weakness in mathematics and English. In particular, the school identified vocabulary, reading comprehension, open-ended response, and mathematics computation as the most significant areas of weakness. Causes of those gaps were identified as 1) low scores of entering 7th graders, 2) a large number of low performing students for whom English is a second language, 3) the low performance of special education students, and 4) gaps in the curriculum. The disaggregated data analysis did not identify specific areas of weakness nor did the analysis seek to identify underlying causes for the low performance of English language learners or Special Education students. No disaggregation by gender was included.
While the written plans do not include an analysis of instructional practices, the school's current improvement efforts focus heavily on training and implementation of differentiated instruction strategies. The use of differentiated instruction as a strategy for improving student performance is described by school staff as a means to address gaps in performance for special education and English language learners, suggesting that, in practical terms, the school has linked poor student performance to weaknesses in current instructional practice. As described by the one staff member, "Traditional teaching practices were not meeting the varied needs of students." With the development of the middle school concept and feedback from the panel review process, the school has increasingly focused on the link between instructional practices and student learning.
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's plan does a thorough job of identifying the specific areas of weakness based on MCAS and SAT 9 data and including those in the plan's objective to emphasize learning standards in classroom instruction. In an effort to help implement this goal, a new lesson plan format was created which requires teachers to identify the Curriculum Frameworks Learning Standards the lesson addresses. While the school's written improvement plans do not explicitly identify a lack of standards driven instruction as an underlying reason for poor performance, work is being done to address that problem. In addition to the standards based lesson plans, MCAS item analysis led to the identification of learning strands to be focused on in the classroom.
In its written plans, the school did identify a lack of sufficient time in the school day devoted to reading instruction and inadequate academic support for low-performing students as barriers to improving student performance. To address these problems, school officials have altered the school schedule to add a literacy class focused on reading comprehension and provided opportunities during the school day (in addition to before and after school) for students to receive tutoring. Another student support initiative planned for summer 2002, developed as a result of the school's examination of the performance of students from feeder schools, will recruit students identified as "at risk" to participate in a summer academy.
While the school's mathematics scores are quite low - and lower than English language arts scores - the school did not adequately identify causes for poor performance in mathematics beyond suggesting that curricular gaps were the problem. The mathematics plan specifies the learning standards in which students demonstrated weakness and included those in the lesson plan strategy referenced above. No other analysis, such as identifying content knowledge of staff related to gaps or examining curricular materials, was conducted.
In an effort to differentiate instruction to better meet the needs of individual students and to facilitate the transition to a middle school model, Normandin has focused heavily on professional development and in-school support in their improvement plans to achieve those goals. The school's professional development needs assessment revealed that staff most needed/wanted training in content, adolescent learning, teaming, and differentiated instruction. The leadership report indicates that over 50% of staff have participated in training on differentiated instruction. Other professional development opportunities have been provided by the district related to educating the middle school student and attended by Normandin Junior High School faculty. An additional effort to boost teaching practices and implement common expectations for instruction includes training in Research for Better Teaching (RBT) teaching practices. Training in effective team planning, while one of the school's objectives, has not been supported by professional development to date. None of the professional development initiatives identified in the leadership report are new to the school improvement plan, as differentiated instruction, RBT, and teaming initiatives have been carried forward from the 2000-2001 school year.
The school's improvement plans are focused primarily on changes in instructional practice and on addressing curricular gaps. The school has not yet adequately addressed how to assess student learning aligned to these changes in a systematic and ongoing fashion. Department heads in English and mathematics visit classrooms, collect teacher lessons and samples of student work to monitor progress. However, at present there are no consistent means for the school to determine progress at the student, classroom, and school level on an ongoing basis. Thus, while the school's plan is clearly focused on teaching, it has yet to adequately address how learning will be assessed in a consistent way.
The school's plan also includes the involvement of the New England League of Middle Schools (NELMS) to provide on-site support for the transition to a middle school model. NELMS' role in the plan has been to serve as a coach/mentor to the principal. A further effort to provide in-school support for instruction is provided by the district's funding of two content facilitators, one in mathematics and one in English.
C. In order to accomplish each improvement objective, does the plan specify strategies which appear likely to lead to improved student results?
The school has implemented a variety of strategies in an effort to improve student achievement including: changing the school schedule to allow more time for specific literacy instruction; time before, during, and after school for academic support and tutoring; time for individual and team planning; professional development to support the transition to the middle school concept and to improve teacher instructional practice; strategies for addressing gaps reflected in MCAS analysis; increased inclusion; the addition of two content area facilitators to support teachers; and administrator "walk-throughs" to observe and provide feedback on classroom practice.
Teachers are working simultaneously to implement differentiated instruction, to ensure that their lessons are aligned to standards, to engage in team planning, and to create interdisciplinary learning opportunities. Teachers view differentiated instruction as a means to better meet the varying needs of students in their classrooms. Teachers across the school pointed to the teacher teams as a very positive change. Teachers report that they receive most of their support for instructional practices through colleagues on teams. In addition, they report that they have developed a better sense of the students they serve and work together to solve problems and develop solutions on behalf of students. As part of that effort, teams often include parents in developing strategies and supports for students. This, they report, has worked to strengthen the relationship with families.
Improvements in the school's MCAS scores in 2001 is an indication that the school may be making progress as a result of its improvement initiatives. Interviews with staff and students also revealed anecdotal evidence that the school is making progress toward its goals. Limited classroom observations noted the use of differentiated instruction, the use of the standards-based lesson plan format, the use of rubrics, and the use of some RBT teaching techniques.
While school improvement initiatives noted above are likely to contribute to improvements in student achievement, the school currently lacks a systematic plan for prioritizing training, implementation, and evaluation to ensure consistency of practice and enable school leaders to monitor the effectiveness of improvement initiatives. The initiatives set forth require teachers to attend to many facets of teaching practice at once and do not allow adequate time for team planning and preparation, practice, reflection, and refinement.
Teacher teams, school facilitators, administrators, and department chairs are in place to support and guide improvement efforts. However, lacking a sense of focus, priority, and clear expectations, these components are weakly connected at present. This lack of consistent implementation, structure, and systematic ways for assessing and reporting progress weakens the confidence that the strategies will lead to the kind of growth the school seeks to attain and sustain. Limited classroom observations and interviews with staff and students pointed to inconsistent practices and varying levels of rigor across classrooms and "pods ".
In addition, the school's lack of plans for addressing the needs of students for whom English is a second language are likely to prevent them from making adequate gains in student achievement. While the school points to the numbers of English language learners as a "cause" for low student performance, there is no evidence that the school understands the needs of this population of students or has the expertise to craft effective research-based solutions.
D. Are the school's written improvement planning document (s) clear and specific enough to guide their implementation of planned improvement initiatives?
The school's written plan is comprised of several components that have been developed over the past two years: (1) an Administrative Action Plan, (2) a School Linked Services Action Planning Worksheet, (3) a Math Action Plan 2001-2002, (4) an English Action Plan 2001-2002, and (5) the Normandin School Improvement Plan 2001-2003. While the addendums to the plan were added as a means to address emerging needs, the lack of consolidation across plans has resulted in a very cumbersome and fragmented set of documents. The plan(s) does not provide a coherent or cohesive picture of the school's vision, needs, goals, strategies, and methods for evaluating progress. There are at least three formats included in the plan, none of them providing an effective analysis and description of needs the plan is attempting to address.
The most significant weaknesses of the plan in its current form are: (1) the lack of clarity, focus, and sense of prioritization; and (2) the lack of a systematic process and set of tools to assess student and school progress over time.
E. Was the School Improvement Plan developed through a process that will support its successful implementation?
All school stakeholders were involved in the Normandin school improvement planning process. Committees including over 30 faculty members were involved in the process. The School Site Council and other staff members were involved through school-wide review and comment on the plan. Department heads worked with groups in analyzing student performance data. School facilitators participated in the process as well.
Interviews with staff across the school and at the district level indicate that there is widespread awareness of the school's broad goals and plans. The school also considered previous school plans as well as information provided through the ESE panel review reports in revising their plans. At this point, the plan lacks a clear design and tools for evaluating the success of their initiatives in an ongoing fashion.
KEY QUESTION 2: Are the Conditions in Place for the Successful Implementation of the Improvement Plan(s)?
IMPORTANT NOTE: The current Normandin Junior High School principal is retiring at the end of this school year. The incoming principal, who officially assumes his new role on July 1st, also participated in this panel review process. The new principal also worked with the current principal to formulate the administration plan as part of the school's revised school improvement plan.
Leadership at the school share a common understanding of the needs of Normandin students and the direction required of the school's improvement efforts. Faculty supports the improvement activities at Normandin and work collegially to implement new methods and explore new ways to help students improve. District leaders are providing extensive support to assist Normandin with its transition to a middle school model, including the construction of a new building scheduled to open in 2003.
The incoming principal has met with faculty to communicate his vision, to build relationships, and to listen to the perspectives and concerns of faculty. He is an experienced middle school educator who has done training in Research for Better Teaching (RBT) methods and is involved in the New England League of Middle Schools (NELMS) organization. He communicated confidence in the school's ability to create an effective middle school organization and views the staff as a committed and willing group of educators. He recognizes the need to seek out expertise in addressing the needs of English language learners and stated the need to increase the focus on the school improvement and clarify and strengthen the systems of implementation, support, and evaluation. Staff described him as an asset for his middle school knowledge and experience.
A. Does the school have effective leadership and sound management?
At the time of the panel review visit, the school leadership included both the school's outgoing and incoming principals. Both leaders communicate a shared vision for Normandin and confidence that the school is moving forward in its efforts to improve student performance and to transition to a middle school model. Staff and parents expressed confidence in both leaders, expressing respect for the outgoing principal's work to create an open, supportive, and collegial environment and the future principal's experience and vision for the new middle school.
The outgoing principal helped lay the groundwork for school improvement by instituting changes that staff point to as very positive. His open-door policy, his effort to make parents feel welcome and part of the school community, and his support of school improvement planning efforts have helped put in place conditions required for school improvement.
B. Is there evidence that the school's faculty supports the planned improvement efforts?
The staff, comprised of new, mid-level, and senior teachers, expressed support and enthusiasm for school improvement initiatives. Teachers describe the faculty as extremely collegial and supportive. New teachers described feeling very welcomed into the school by the faculty and being assisted by more experienced teachers in classroom strategies and techniques. Staff across the school expressed confidence in the direction of the school's improvement efforts. They pointed to improvement in students' MCAS scores in 2001, and staff offered anecdotal evidence about the success of the school initiatives. Staff spoke frequently about the benefits of teaming - to themselves as professionals, to students, and to parent engagement with the school.
C. Is the school receiving adequate guidance and support from the district leadership?
District leaders are well informed of the school's needs and have provided a high level of support for Normandin's school improvement initiatives. The district has focused financial and personnel resources to support the school's transition to the middle school. Supports have included the provision of two school-based facilitators, weekly support provided by English and Math department heads, the addition of a grade 6-12 special education department head, and the provision of a range of professional development throughout the year geared toward the needs of the Normandin School. District training included: Research for Better Teaching (two levels), Teaching Reading at the Middle School Level, Teaching Math at the Middle School Level, the Adolescent Learner, Differentiated Instruction (two levels).
The district also contracted with NELMS to provide mentoring support to the school principal over the course of the year. District department heads for English and Math worked with Normandin in their school improvement planning process in the analysis of student test data. The assistant superintendent stated that they are using their experience gained from the development of the Roosevelt Middle School to inform their development of the program at Normandin. The district is constructing a new building which will house the Normandin Middle School. The school will open in the fall of 2003.
While an evaluation of the district's bilingual program was conducted and completed in November 2001 by the Education Alliance at Brown University, the district has yet to formulate plans in response to the findings in that report. The study found that the district did not have adequate systems in place to support students' transition from bilingual to mainstream classes and that 30% of students entering mainstream classes return to bilingual classes. This finding corroborates the concern at Normandin that English language learners are lagging behind.
District plans for next year include continued professional development, the addition of a special education position and an additional facilitator, ongoing monitoring and support, and support (if funded) from an application for a National Science Foundation mathematics initiative.
Conclusion
Normandin Junior High School has set in place school improvement initiatives geared toward (1) improving student performance on MCAS and (2) preparing for the middle school configuration. While the school's written plans lack the clarity necessary to effectively guide school improvement efforts, the actual work done this year reflects staff support to move the school forward and to improve student performance. The school's overarching plan is supported by widespread faculty commitment to its broad goals and strategies. New and veteran faculty are obtaining professional development and developing skills in delivering standards-based differentiated instruction. The school's 2001 MCAS results as well as anecdotal evidence collected during this panel review visit suggest the school is improving. Yet to be addressed are the critical requirements for the school and district (1) to create and implement plans for meeting the needs of English language learners, and (2) to create a system for assessing student and school performance on an ongoing basis.
The outgoing school principal's creation of an open and collegial environment and his support of improvement initiatives, coupled with the experience and middle school expertise of the incoming principal, position the school well to move successfully toward the middle school concept and to improve student learning. There is widespread support for both leaders and for the school's future direction. Staff is working hard to implement improvements that are not well focused and coordinated at this time. The district is committed to supporting the school through its next transition year and then as it moves into its new building. District support, particularly in the form of professional development, has been critical in the school's success this year. As at the school level, the district has yet to formulate plans for addressing the needs of students for whom English is a Second Language.
APPENDIX A: Team Members
Carol Keirstead, Senior Research Associate, RMC Research Corporation, Portsmouth, NH
Scott Kelley, Ph.D., Panel Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA
Margaret Kelliher, Professional Development Coordinator, Springfield Public Schools, Springfield, MA
last updated: July 22, 2002
|
State Government · State Services 
