Report of the Follow-Up School Panel Review of the Accelerated Learning Laboratory, Worcester, MA

Introduction

The Accelerated Learning Laboratory 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 test 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 Accelerated Learning Laboratory's plan for improving student achievement at the middle grades level. In particular, panel members found that at that time:

The conditions necessary for successful implementation of a sound plan to improve student performance at the middle grades are at risk due to the imminent departure of the highly respected founding principal and the issue of extremely high teacher turnover.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 during June, August, and September. The principal and a planning team from the Accelerated Learning Laboratory 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 Accelerated Learning Laboratory 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 Accelerated Learning Laboratory is deemed to be under-performing.

Accelerated Learning Laboratory Profile

The Accelerated Learning Laboratory is a K-12 school, with 252 of its 888 students enrolled in grades six through eight as of fall 2000.² Eighty-one percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 36 percent spoke a first language other than English. The school identified less than one percent of its students as Limited English Proficient and reported that 39 percent were Hispanic, 38 percent were white, 14 percent were African-American, eight percent were Asian, and one percent were Native American.

Students missed on average 11 days of school in 2000-2001, for a daily attendance rate of 94.3 percent. In that same year, 66 students (26%) received out-of-school suspensions, while 65 students (26%) were suspended in school. Four students (4%) were excluded for more than 10 days. Additionally in 2000-2001, nine students dropped out, and 16 (6%) were retained in grade.

MCAS Test Results

Cycle I Results

Overall MCAS results showed a decline in 1999 followed by a return in 2000 to results equal to 1998. In comparing the 1998 baseline score to the 1999 and 2000 average, scores declined by four points in English Language Arts, improved by one point in Mathematics, and decreased two points in Science & Technology. In 2000, 36 percent scored in the Failing performance level in English Language Arts, 63 percent scored Failing in Mathematics, and 66 percent scored Failing in Science & Technology. Regular education students represented a lower proportion of the eighth grade class in 2000 (79%) than in 1998 (93%), and their overall MCAS participation rate declined from 1998.

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?

A careful examination of the documents supplied by the school shows that the Accelerated Learning Laboratory has a sound, formal improvement plan complete with clear goals, measurable benchmarks, timelines, identification of responsible parties and resources necessary to insure success.

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 has analyzed appropriate data including the 2000 MCAS and SAT 9 scores to accurately identify gaps in student performance. Their data analysis included disaggregated data on many levels. This allowed the school to address second language learner and male/female differences that had not been recognized in writing previous improvement plans. As a result of their analysis, two goals have been identified that relate directly to specific student needs: the improvement of reading skills and the performance of second language learners.

Factors external to the school such as the move from a magnet school to a neighborhood school model and high rates of student mobility have had some impact on student test results. However, the school and district have also recognized that an inadequate transition plan to the new school created less than optimum teaching and learning conditions. The new plan also suggests that during the transition period, an emphasis on skill-building seminars by teachers within the Co-NECT program may not have been implemented consistently. These two internal factors also impacted student and teacher performance.

The Principal expresses confidence in her staff to implement the plan, stating "They are very collaborative; they take ownership of their students' progress." The staff has also remarked that they are motivated to find ways of working with second language learners. They are also trying to find a balance between project based learning and the teaching of basic skills. In-service sessions to address this problem are planned for this school year.

The school is working with the Co-NECT organization to align the state learning standards with project-based learning. A computer program, "Project Builder", is being used to this end.

The Accelerated Learning Laboratory school improvement plan clearly identifies problem areas and concerns, strengths and weaknesses of students and gaps in student performance. The identification of students in need of special education services, although not yet in the school plan, is an ongoing process in the school as reported by the Special Education Department Chair.

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 panel review team agrees that the plan's objectives are grounded in the school's analysis of reasons for poor student performance.

As an example, disaggregating data showed that English language learners did poorly in the Math and ELA portions of the MCAS test in both absolute terms and in comparison with other students. The school improvement plan set as one of its objectives the goal of closing the gap between second language learners and majority students by three points (20% of the total gap). One of the strategies listed to meet that objective was to design and provide staff development to improve teachers' ability to work with second language learners. A professional development model, RISE (part of the Rigby program) is to be implemented to provide strategies for teachers in teaching reading to second language learners.

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

The plan does specify strategies which appear likely to lead to improved student results. Many of the strategies in support of the identified objectives in the improvement plan call for the implementation or continuation of research based professional development models. To that end, the Rigby Supporting Literacy training will continue on the Middle School level. A LINKS facilitator will be trained to work with the faculty in the Fall of 2001, and faculty training will be provided in March, 2002. Read 180 has been implemented in all of the 6th grade clusters and in one of the 8th grade clusters.

The Middle School Math Initiative, already in the school, will be strengthened as it has shown that time on task can dramatically increase student performance in basic math skills. Additional training and program awareness will also be provided in the Co-NECT model of project based learning.

"Reading Across the Curriculum" philosophy has been implemented in a variety of ways:

1. expansion of the READ 180 program to thirty minutes each of vocabulary, comprehension and spelling work. This program gives a measurement of student growth over time
2. school-wide training of teachers in second language acquisition strategies
3. addition of a full-time ESL instructor to better meet the needs of the students identified in the disaggregated data
4. additional training for teachers in teaching reading comprehension
5. LINKS training (writing across the curriculum strategies) to be provided for grade 4-8 teachers beginning in March, 2002

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

The school's written improvement planning documents are clear and specific and are a testimony to the value of the work completed by the school in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's summer retreat and the diligence of the district and school in insuring a wide participation in the writing and continual revision of the final document. The PTA president exclaimed that she "gets it", that she finally understood what they were talking about when she read this new plan because of its clarity, concise action steps and narratives. To quote the Principal, "We know what we are going to do, when it should be done, who is doing it, how it will be measured…" The Quadrant Manager, Janice Johnson, has explained that the plan is a living document which will be revised as the needs of the students warrant and that the benchmarks will be constantly revisited. A condensed version of the plan has been given to each teacher and accompanies the Principal on classroom visits.

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

The school improvement plan was developed through an inclusive process that supports its successful implementation.

The process began with the planning retreat in June sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The Principal, Curriculum Facilitator, Assessment Specialist and a middle school teacher worked with ESE facilitators to become familiar with the turnaround planning process. Based on the analysis of 8th grade MCAS Math scores, a planning model was designed, taken back to the school and utilized with an additional eight staff members. This expanded group then added the students' English Language Arts MCAS scores to the study.

Following a second session with the ESE, the group completed a rough draft of the plan which was disseminated to the entire faculty. It was then shared with the School Council and parent organization representatives who also provided feedback. Finally, the School Design team reviewed the draft in October.

The staff is actively implementing the components of the plan as evidenced in classroom visits by the panel review team. The staff understands their role in and responsibility for its implementation. Classrooms are visited regularly by the administrative team to assist in implementation where necessary.

Professional development activities are part of the improvement plan's objectives and action steps.

Further work is necessary to disseminate salient pieces of the plan in languages appropriate to the entire parent population.

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

The conditions for successfully implementing improvement initiatives appear to be in place. The District leadership continues to be supportive of the school's improvement efforts. The leadership at the school has the confidence of the vast majority of stakeholders and has proven itself capable of undertaking significant change efforts.

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

The school has effective leadership and sound management provided by the Principal and the School Design team. The Principal seems to have become the school's administrative and instructional leader in a very short time. "The Principal has given the school a new perspective," remarked one Design Team member.

The Principal was an integral part of the team that wrote the turnaround plan during the summer retreat. She also participated in a September orientation program for schools new to the new Co-NECT design so as to familiarize herself with its components. A new administrative team has been established and meets daily with the Principal. The Principal has redefined roles of the administrative staff to better meet the school's goals.

Teacher leadership roles in the school are reflected in the School Design team which has responsibility for implementation of the Co-NECT program. Morale appears to be high and there is evident agreement with the goals of the new school plan. Faculty and parents express confidence in the school leadership and the successful continuation of the Co-NECT program. Some parents expressed dissatisfaction with the Math program were glad to see mathematics specifically addressed in the new plan.

The school needs to intensify its efforts to involve neighborhood families in the life of the school including those parents whose dominant language is not English. To address this need, the District has set a goal of increasing parent participation in the schools by adopting the Joyce Epstein model of Family Involvement for all Worcester public schools.

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

The school's faculty strongly supports the planned improvement efforts. Teachers learned new skills in planning and the use of data during the summer while writing the turnaround plan. All teachers have had input in the writing and re-writing of the plan. Teachers told the panel review team that this turnaround plan is more specific, measurable and attainable than past plans and that they feel they are on "the right track."

While committed to the principles and practices of the Co-NECT design of project learning, the teachers also recognize the need to emphasize the teaching of basic skills. All teachers have been designated teachers of reading and teachers of English language learners.

Following a difficult transition time moving into a new school with double the student population, the faculty has stabilized with only 2 or 3 new teachers joining the staff this school year. Senior faculty act as mentors to new teachers by explaining the project based model. Additional training is scheduled for this year on the Co-NECT model.

Teachers have common planning periods in grade level clusters daily and this time is used to discuss curriculum, program and plan implementation and student progress.

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

District representatives, including the Superintendent, express a high level of support for the A.L.L. school and for the Co-NECT design. Federal program staff members have worked to help the A.L.L. school access federal funds and programs. Examples include the school's Title I School-wide program and the 21st Century after school and summer programs.

Significantly, in the past six months, the district has provided increased assistance in writing the turnaround plan. For example, the Quadrant Manager participated with the faculty in the planning retreats held during the summer.

In support of the goals of the plan, the district has provided an MCAS specialist, whose responsibility will be to conduct data analysis, provide feedback to teachers that will drive classroom instruction and model classroom instruction. The District is also providing a full time ESL specialist. Monies have been allocated to fund the continuation of the Middle School Math Initiative and to support the READ 180 expansion. Financial support has been provided for additional materials and books as well as professional development.

The district is working to support data driven school improvement planning. The central office completes data analysis for all the schools and will provide assistance to the A.L.L. school to further disaggregate data. It also provides guidelines to schools to assist them in writing improvement plans and provides feedback to the schools when it reviews those plans.

Conclusion

There now exists at the Accelerated Learning Laboratory an improvement plan that more than meets the criteria of successful plans. It has clear goals and measurable objectives and also provides a clear analysis of the reasons for poor student performance. It clearly demonstrates a link between improvement strategies and student needs. The newly selected principal has the necessary support of the district office and the confidence of the major stakeholders in the school to successfully implement and achieve the goals of this plan.

Appendix A
Team Members

Joseph Trunk, Panel Chairperson, Consultant with SchoolWorks, Beverly, Mass.

Robert Moore, Director, Martha's Vineyard Public Charter School, West Tisbury, Mass.

Julia Phelps, District Curriculum Coordinator, Amesbury, Mass.

Pat Poska, Lead Instructional Facilitator, Lynn Public Schools, Lynn, Mass.

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

¹ Quoted from a letter from the Commissioner Driscoll to Principal Shilinsky dated April 26, 2001.
² Data not yet available for 2001-2002 academic year.