Report of the School Panel Review of the Elias Brookings Middle School, Springfield, 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 Elias Brookings Middle School was one of twelve Massachusetts middle schools meeting this criterion that were selected for panel reviews in spring, 2001. The Panel Review of the Brookings Middle School was conducted on March 21, 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 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 Brookings 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 Brookings 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.

Elias Brookings School Profile

The Elias Brookings School is one of two Springfield schools serving students from kindergarten through grade eight. In 2000, the school enrolled 665 students, of whom 327 were sixth, seventh, or eighth graders. The school reported that 91 percent of its students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 33 percent spoke a first language other than English, and 12 percent were identified as Limited English Proficient. In addition, the school reported that 39 percent of the students were African-American, 38 percent were Hispanic, 21 percent were white, and one percent were Asian.

In 1999 (the most recent year's data available to the panel), students missed on average 11 days of school, for a daily attendance rate of 93.8 percent. Attendance data for grades 6-8 was not provided. The school reported that no students dropped out that year. In 2000, 38 students (11.6%) in grades 6-8 received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 155 (47.4%) were suspended in-school one or more times. In addition, the school reported that 13 students (3.9%) in grades 6-8 repeated a grade in 2000. There were 22 student exclusions across the school, which was the fifth highest rate in the district. Eighteen of the 22 incidents involved students in grades 6-8.

Staffing

There are 26 full-time teachers at the Elias Brookings Middle School. The average per pupil-to-teacher ratio is 13 to 1. The central staff consists of Principal Maryanne Herron, one assistant principal, one school-wide reading coordinator, one head teacher, two guidance counselors, and a librarian. Of the 26 full-time teachers, 10 (38%) have attained a master's degree.

Elias Brookings Middle School MCAS Results

Overall grade 8 MCAS results fluctuated during the past three years, with scores highest during the baseline year. In comparing the 1998 baseline score to the 1999 and 2000 average, scores were three points lower in English Language Arts, four points lower in Mathematics, and four points lower in Science & Technology. In 2000, 42 percent scored in the Failing performance level in English Language Arts, 82 percent scored in Failing in Mathematics, and 71 percent scored in Failing in Science & Technology. Overall MCAS participation rates were highest in 1999 (96-100% across content areas) and lowest in 2000 (92-93%). Rates of participation among special education students have remained between 97 and 100 percent all three years.

Panel Reponses to the Key Questions

Key Question 1: does the School Have a Sound Plan for Improving Student Performance?

The school has analyzed ITBS test scores and MCAS results in collaboration with the district. Details of the data analysis and conclusions can be found in a 19-page letter co-written by the superintendent and principal. Overall results suggest that increased student achievement is necessary in all core academic areas. In order to involve the staff in data analysis, faculty participated in two data workshops sponsored by Mt. Holyoke College. During the first workshop teachers examined data for areas of student strengths and weaknesses and looked at the school programs in place to meet student needs. During the second workshop, teachers revisited data and the curriculum frameworks. Interviews with some teachers indicated that they are thinking about how data is linked to school improvement efforts. They suggested that students' literacy, specifically vocabulary development, is a key area for improvement.

There is less evidence of a systematic process for teachers to use data formatively to inform instruction. In an interview, one teacher said that while many teachers use classroom assessments to inform practice, on-going use of data is not widespread. For example, teachers do not systematically look at student work together during team meetings that occur 4 times per week. Moreover the panel review team saw little evidence that data is being used formatively to assess the many programs that are in the School Improvement Plan. Student interviews revealed that very few students participate in the after school math program, one of the programs in the school improvement plan to raise academic achievement in math.

The Leadership Report and Teacher Survey detail a number of reasons for the gaps in student performance. Among those are: a transient student population, lack of parent involvement, and high numbers of at risk students. While these factors suggest the complexities that many urban schools face, the panel was concerned that there was little discussion about the relationship between the above reasons and effective classroom practice.

The School Improvement Plan has seven goals aimed at addressing both academic and non-academic concerns. Each goal has a number of programs. The Responsive Classroom, a program that is designed to help teachers and administrators integrate social and academic learning was started in the summer of 2000. Thirteen teachers from grades 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 and both administrators attended. Interviews with teachers and one parent indicated strong support for this program as they have already seen positive results. There are current plans to include grade additional teachers during summer 2001 workshops.

Another promising program to support students' social and academic needs was implemented in January 2001. Service Teams, composed of academic teachers, support staff and service agency partners, meet weekly to discuss students at-risk. Each service team, responsible for 125 students, attempts to solve student problems within the classroom setting. Approximately 25% of the staff participates on a service team. Like the responsive classroom, service team members appear confident that this approach is likely to lead to improved student results. And like the responsive classroom teachers, service team members indicated their desire for this program to be school wide. Some teachers expressed concern that while they were seeing positive results with the responsive classrooms and service teams, they were concerned that not enough staff was participating.

Increasing student achievement in reading and language arts is one of the school improvement goals. A number of programs are in place to address this goal including an early intervention reading program, flexible grouping through a literature-based reading model, First Steps Writing Program and an after school literacy program in grades 3, 4, and middle school. According to the Title I School Improvement Grant, English as a Second Language classes have been expanded to include all students that are below grade level in language arts and whose first language is other than English.

Increasing parent involvement in another goal of the school improvement plan. The plan suggests a rethinking of the ways in which the school works with parents. They have started parent orientations for all grades in September. The school has an open door policy for parents and the panel review team learned that the PTO was just getting re-starting. The two parents interviewed mentioned culture, poverty and the transient population as some of the barriers to wider parent participation. One parent suggested that the school provide more information about how parents can help their children on the MCAS. The panel review team learned that school notices are sent home in Russian and English, but not in Spanish. Despite the numbers of programs that are mentioned in the school improvement plan, there is evidence that increasing parental involvement remains a substantial challenge.

Overall, the development of the school improvement was a collaborative process. However, in interviews, some teachers described little meaningful involvement. The School Site Council spearheaded the development of the plan. As the data was being analyzed, the school site council reviewed the school's previous plans. During their twice- weekly meetings, the council drafted the plan and circulated it for teacher feedback. Teacher feedback was informal; however, school site council members indicated that they received much teacher input. Teacher focus group members asserted that there was sufficient teacher involvement and two thirds of the teachers who responded to the teacher survey indicated that they were well informed about the school's initiatives to improve learning. According to the principal and a department head, the weekly extended-day meetings were dedicated to reviewing the plan.

There appears to be a strong informal process where teachers can communicate ideas for the plan. Some teachers feel comfortable with their ability to bring forward ideas to improve the school while a few expressed concerns that more communication is needed. During a focus group interview, the panel review team learned that the district did not provide feedback for the plan before it was finalized.

The strength of the school improvement plan is the linkage between identified problems and solutions; however, the written document is missing key features of a clear and specific plan. Generally the plan contains objectives, strategies, action steps, timelines and evaluation but these elements are inconsistent among the seven goals. For example, goal 1 has objectives but goal 6 does not. More important, the plan lacks measurable goals and objectives that make the impact on student achievement difficult to evaluate. Finally, the plan lacks realistic timelines that indicate program priorities, resources needed, staff persons needed for implementation and oversight, periodic checks and evaluation of results.

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

The school has effective leadership and management. In addition to the principal and assistant principal, the school has a head teacher, department heads responsible for curriculum mapping and directly working with teachers, a school site council, and grade level teams that meet four times weekly.

According to the leadership report and teacher interviews there are a number of ways that school leaders and staff communicate with each other and meet together. The principal writes memos to communicate building-wide issues. All staff meets every Tuesday to discuss school issues. Department heads oversee the curriculum mapping process that allows the principal and other staff to view where students are in the curriculum in any given class. The panel review team saw evidence of curriculum maps outside of many classrooms. Grade level teams meet four times weekly and according to some teachers, the principal joins these team meetings when she can. However, the Teacher Survey indicates that there is little opportunity to plan and coordinate instruction, discuss student work and discuss strategies and services for individual students. This suggests that the school needs to examine how time is spent in the team meetings. Finally, the school site council meets twice a week to discuss school issues.

There are opportunities for teachers to express problems and concerns. However, a few teachers indicated that there is inconsistency in how teachers discipline students and uneven participation in programs such as The Responsive Classroom and service teams. Approximately two thirds of the teachers who responded to the Teacher Survey feel that the principal provides effective leadership, but half are unsure about the effectiveness of the School Site Council.

There is overall support for the school improvement efforts. Most of the staff interviewed agrees with the school's assessment of identified needs. The Teacher Survey indicates that most teachers are informed about the strategies and initiatives for improving student performance; however, there is guarded hope about the effectiveness of some of the programs and initiatives. Some teachers expressed confidence that student performance will improve if "we stay the course." A number of teachers expressed concern that the school is trying to do too much at once without monitoring program effectiveness. Moreover, they expressed concern that not enough staff is involved in some of the programs.

The district is providing support to the Brookings School through the district improvement plan, but there are areas of concern. A letter co-written by the superintendent and the principal details the ways that the district is supporting the school. Some examples include: continued collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh through the principal leadership program; assistance from Research for Better Teaching to assist schools in the development of an effective teacher evaluation system; district-wide professional development for teachers; school analysis of MCAS and ITBS tests results. Aside from the principal's enthusiasm for these programs, the effectiveness of these programs on the Brookings School is questionable as they have not been evaluated. Finally, the school committee voted on January 25, 2001 not to add Grade 6 seats to the Brookings School beyond the seats needed for Grade 5 students to continue in the K-8 school. This was an important supportive measure responding to a concern from school personnel about the influx of "new" 6th grade students at the middle school level.

An area of concern is the school's physical plant and material resources. While the panel review team is aware that a new building and material resources are not the sole answer to increased student achievement, the school is in need of repair. The district has an aggressive plan to upgrade the many school buildings needing repair; but there are no current plans to upgrade the Brookings school building. Interviews with staff and students indicate their frustration with the lack of supplies and the poor condition of the building. Students interviewed commented on the condition of the restrooms, classrooms and cafeteria. Panel review members observed out of date textbooks, a general lack of materials, and some classrooms that needed general repair.

Conclusion

The panel review team concludes that the school has a plan for improving student performance and that the conditions appear to be in place for the successful implementation of the plan. The school has identified its problems and concerns and implemented programs based on students' needs. There is strong leadership and a commitment to improving student performance. However, the panel feels strongly that continued support to the school from the district is necessary. Challenges to the success of the Brookings School improvement efforts are building and resource issues as mentioned above. Continued attention to prioritizing and assessing the impact of programs on student performance will enhance the likelihood that the Brookings School will be successful.

Appendix A

Team Members

Robert Boule, Quadrant Manager, Worcester Public Schools, Worcester, MA

Dr. Nancy Clair, Brookings Chairperson, Schoolworks, Beverly, MA

Ann Deveney, Senior Program Director, English, Boston Public Schools, Boston, MA.

Margarita LaBoy, Brookings Coordinator, Accountability and Targeted Assistance, MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA.

Sharon Tucker, Technology Facilitator, Lynn Public Schools, Lynn, 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.