Archived Information

Report of the School Panel Review of the
Moseley School, Westfield, MA

Introduction

The Program

The Exemplary Schools Program is one part of the Massachusetts School and District Accountability System. The purpose of the Exemplary Schools Program is to recognize and celebrate improvement in Massachusetts schools, and to disseminate information and encourage networking and sharing of good ideas, effective practices, and models for success. The program is intended to provide a means for these schools to share their expertise with other schools in the state.

Based on the School Performance Ratings issued in January 2001, the Department identified 242 schools that exceeded their expectations for improvement and invited them to participate in the Program. Of the more than 100 schools who chose to do so by submitting a School Leader Questionnaire, nine elementary and three middle schools were selected as finalists for possible designation as Exemplar sites, and scheduled for closer review to determine the willingness and capacity to serve. The data and information gathered from the other participants' questionnaires will be compiled and published in a report this June.

The Commissioner will designate up to 12 of these elementary and middle schools to serve as Exemplar sites. Exemplar sites will receive special recognition and a $10,000 grant to support the participation of their administrators and staff in information sharing and dissemination activities over the next year.

The Report

This report summarizes the findings and analyses of a small team of education professionals during its day and a half investigation of the Moseley School on April 9-10, 2001. The purpose of this report is to assist the Commissioner in determining which schools from among those visited will be designated to serve as Exemplar sites in the state's new Exemplary Schools Program.

The review panel evaluated data and written information on the school's performance and improvement efforts, visited the school, and met with school and district officials in order to answer the following two key questions:

1. Is this school using effective improvement initiatives that could be replicated in other similarly profiled schools?
2. Are the conditions in place for this school to serve as a model of effective practices and successful improvement initiatives?

The panel's responses to these two questions frame the report. The findings and conclusions presented here are the product of analysis, discussion, and observation, and are based on the evidence made available to the panel before and during their visit. A list of panel members who participated in the Moseley School review is provided in Appendix A. A detailed schedule of the panel's activities is provided in Appendix B.

Moseley School Profile

The Moseley is the second smallest of Westfield's eight K-6 schools. In 2000, Moseley sixth graders were redistricted to the middle school. The school identified 89 percent of its 275 students as white and ten percent as Hispanic. In 2000, one in four (28%) students spoke a first language other than English, which is almost triple the percentage reported in 1998, but only three were identified as Limited English Proficient. In that same year, 56 percent of the students were reported as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

In 1999 (the most recent attendance data available to the panel), students missed on average seven days of school, for a daily attendance rate of 95.9 percent. Since 1998 no more than one student has repeated a grade in any year. In 2000, the school reported that 11 students (4.0%) received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and eight students (2.9%) were suspended in school one or more times. There have been no exclusions since 1997.

Staffing

The school's students are taught by 18 full-time teachers and 5 part-time teacher, along with13 aides for an approximate pupil-to-teacher ratio of 14 to 1. The central staff consists of Principal John Gibbons, a nurse, a school social worker, a part-time school psychologist and one teacher leader/curriculum facilitator. The school reported that, of the 23 full-time teachers, nine (17%) have attained one or more master's degrees, 21 (91%) are certified to teach in their current position, and four possess dual certification.

MCAS Results

MCAS results improved significantly in 1999 but then declined slightly in 2000. In comparing the 1998 baseline score to the 1999 and 2000 average, scores improved by five points in English Language Arts, by 11 points in Mathematics, and by nine points in Science & Technology. In 2000, ten percent scored in the Proficient and Advanced performance levels in English Language Arts, 23 percent scored in Proficient and Advanced in Mathematics, and 38 percent scored in Proficient and Advanced in Science & Technology. While the percentage of special education students enrolled in the fourth grade at Moseley has decreased from 31 to 10 percent since 1998, all of the special education students participated in MCAS for all three content areas.

Panel Responses To The Key Questions

Key Question 1: Is This School Using Effective Improvement Initiatives That Could Be Replicated In Other Similarly Profiled Schools?

Which improvement initiatives have had the greatest impact at the school?

The Superintendent of the Westfield School District named the following as the district initiatives for school year 2000-2001:

• Coordinated Professional Development Program with a concentration on writing across all curriculum areas and the integration of technology.
• Development of a criterion - referenced assessment based on local curriculum outcomes, modeled after the MCAS common questions.
• Participation in the CLASP project, Curriculum Library Alignment and Sharing Project.

These initiatives are a reflection of the two broader district goals of restructuring curricula in all areas to meet the requirements of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the MCAS and professional development to support these changes. This effort began with the advent of the Massachusetts School Reform legislation and the emphasis on the MCAS results. The Superintendent indicated that the district and its schools have wholeheartedly embraced these measures as necessary to improve the delivery of a sound education to all students.

The Moseley School principal endorses and welcomes the district initiatives and the support that the district gives the school. He names as major school initiatives the Literacy Collaborative and analysis of formal and informal test data.

The Literacy Collaborative is a comprehensive model of school reform designed to provide a school-wide approach to literacy instruction in the elementary grades. It has four reading components (read aloud, shared reading, guided reading and independent reading) and four writing components (interactive, guided, modeled and independent writing). Instituted in the school on the K-2 level in 1997, it has been implemented in yearly stages under the direction of Lesley College in Cambridge, Massachusetts. An intermediate team of teachers from grades 3-5 began to receive training on implementing the Intermediate Literacy Collaborative this year. The print rich environment (e.g. ink boards, word walls, name walls) that the panel review team saw on its visit gave evidence of how well the Collaborative has taken hold at the Moseley School. Title I funding through the school-wide initiative provided financial resources to create and expand a Literacy closet.

Parents, teachers and community members on the school council talk enthusiastically about parent literacy fun nights, the afternoon bus to the public library for students, before and after school academic and social programs for students as evidence of wide support for the literacy focus in the school.

How have these improvement initiatives contributed to improved student performance results?

The combined district and school initiatives have contributed to improved student performance results by all measures utilized by the state (MCAS) and the school.

Moseley School was identified as a "very low" performing school when 50% of its students scored in the Failing category on the 1998 Mathematics exam. They were given an improvement expectation of 4-6 points which they doubled (+11). This was achieved through dramatic gains on the MCAS Mathematics and Science and Technology (S&T) exams. By 2000, the percentage of Moseley's students in the 'Failing' category in math had been cut to a third of the 1998 rate and the school quadrupled its original percentage of students performing in the Proficient and Advanced category.

The Moseley School Literacy Collaborative is only three years old and only this year is expanding from K-2 to the third through fifth grades. Therefore, its effects on student achievement would not necessarily have appeared as yet on MCAS scores. However, results of the Gates-McGinite tests given on the 2nd grade level over the past two years show a significant improvement in Reading Comprehension and Total Reading scores. Other formal and informal assessments of student progress show similar gains. Thus, the faculty has established baseline data to continuously measure improvement. Analyzing student test data, according to the faculty, has resulted in a more focused attention on student leaning needs, their own professional development and the acquisition of necessary teaching materials. Test scores aside, interviews with the administration, faculty and staff as well as observations made by the panel review team show a unity of purpose across grade levels and content areas on improving students' literacy levels. It is a primary focus in the school and not directly related to the improvement of MCAS scores but rather to the improvement of the educational experience for students and staff alike. In the review team's opinion, this student- centered and school-wide emphasis on literacy, combined with the collaborative approach to student and staff learning under the leadership of the principal will have a positive impact on the learning opportunities for the students.

How did the school set about planning its improvement initiatives?

The planning for the Literacy Collaborative began during the 1996-7 school year but the foundation for its successful implementation was created eight years ago when the Moseley School re-opened due to increased student enrollment in the district.

At that time, the district and the school were challenged to provide an inclusive educational environment to all students and especially to those with special needs. These students had previously received an education separate from the rest of the student body.

Moseley School faculty and staff under the leadership of the principal accepted the challenge and as a collaborative, learning community researched and adopted an inclusion model which provided professional development in classroom management and instructional strategies. This model has been enhanced with new materials and support staff over the years.

A problem solving model was established within the school that resulted in analyzing student needs and studying reform models that would assist the school in addressing systemic school change. The principal, faculty and Title I Director, dissatisfied with low achievement levels or poor reading abilities of the students sought an alternative to current practice. Many literacy models were researched prior to final selection of the Literacy Collaborative. This initiative on the part of the school received the support of the District ELA Director who had been working with the staff to implement the new district language arts curriculum.

The new model complemented the Reading Recovery program already in use in the school as well as the school's experimentation with guided reading strategies.

The panel review team concluded that the collaborative nature of the selection process for choosing a reform model insured buy-in and success in the implementation. The School Improvement Plan does not reflect the scope of planning that exists in the school. This was substantiated through the interviews and review of the grants that are themselves specific plans to address student achievement.

How did the school implement their planned improvement initiative?

As a response to the Massachusetts School Reform law, the Westfield School district began the process of revising its curricula to reflect the new state Frameworks. The introduction of these new materials was done simultaneously with adequate professional development.

The Moseley faculty admitted during interviews that they sometimes felt overwhelmed by the expectation of introducing so much new material at the same time and indicated they have set their own implementation timeline.

The school-wide focus on literacy seems to have taken precedence over other curricula considerations. This is obviously not done to the exclusion or detriment of other subjects, as the most dramatic rise in Moseley School MCAS scores was in the area of Math and Science and Technology. However, since the school literacy effort is across the curriculum and the MCAS test has a strong literacy base, district attention to literacy improvement results in positive changes in other test areas.

The literacy reform model is designed to provide a school-wide approach to literacy instruction in the elementary grades. The primary literacy team (K-2) received five days of overview training two years ago during Phase One. Last year, a first grade teacher trained as the Primary Literacy Coordinator during Phase Two. This year, during Phase Three she has been providing 50 hours of professional development in early literacy for K-2 literacy teachers including special education, Title I and speech and language staff. She also provides coaching three days per week.

During this time, Reading Recovery has been fully implemented and the Literacy Library has been expanded due to increased Title I funding.

An Intermediate team of teachers has begun Phase One on the 3-5 grade levels. Plans are for the training of an Intermediate Literacy Coordinator next year and the continuation of monthly primary training.

Supporting the implementation of this initiative are a variety of other programs, which have been introduced at various times as the needs arose and resources became available:

• Extended day program for students scoring below 50% on CAT tests (before school)
• Academic Support Program for students with poor English Language Arts MCAS scores
• Summer school - funded by the LEA and Title I for six weeks. Includes professional development for staff
• Elementary Literacy Grant - 3 year funding by MASS ESE, Title I and LEA
• Family nights - outreach program with a literacy emphasis
• Writing Links Program - upper grades teaching strategies
• Bus to the Library - provides transportation round trip for access to additional resources for students

Did the school monitor the effectiveness of the initiatives?

Faculty and staff have received training in MCAS item analysis by a professor from Westfield State College. The results this year revealed a weakness in literature and an action plan was provided to all teachers to address this need. This included expanding the number of books in the school library, providing lists of classic and contemporary authors, and a family reading night in the school library. This quick response bodes well for future monitoring of the effectiveness of the initiative when it begins in the higher grades. The Literacy Collaborative, begun in the K-2 level in 1997, is too new a program to have its results evidenced in MCAS scores.

The following testing of student achievement is done in the primary level:

• Diagnostic Reading Assessment (all grades, fall & spring)
• Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (K, 2)
• Ohio State University text reading with fluency rating (K, 1, 2)
• Motivation to read profile (gr. 2)
• Spelling assessment (gr. 2)
• Write name assessment (K)
• Gates Mc Ginitie (gr.2) (Reading Comprehension, total reading)
• Terra Nova (gr. 2)

Each classroom teacher maintains an individual assessment card with the scores from the baseline data for each student. These cards are cumulative and move with the students. The goal is to look at trends and to design instruction for the children on an individual basis.

does the school think these initiatives can be replicated? Why?

The faculty and staff feel that their primary literacy initiative can be replicated in other schools but that it takes a major investment of time and energy to do so, especially for those living a distance from key resources. A commitment to continuous professional development to ensure successful implementation is also necessary. The culture of the school must also value everybody in it to make this effort seem doable, as is the case at Moseley. Key to all this, in the opinion of the faculty, staff and parents, is the leadership of the principal who constantly nurtures the collaborative, professional environment that exists in this school and seems to encourage people to do their best. The district Superintendent and other district personnel also pointed to the inclusive approach to leadership that the principal exemplifies as important to the improvement in academic results in the school and feel it too can be replicated, but that any of these changes can often take years to implement.

Key Question 2: Are The Conditions In Place For This School To Serve As A Model Of Effective Practices And Successful Improvement Initiatives?

Do leadership and staff have a shared understanding and use a common language to describe the changes/initiatives that have led to improvements in teaching and learning?

Is there a school-wide focus on, and sufficient staff investment in, continued improvement of student performance?

Leadership and staff have a shared understanding and articulate connections between improvement initiatives and teaching and learning improvements. In fact, they feel that the success to date of the literacy initiative is a result of a renewed focus on improving their approach to teaching and understanding how children learn through the literacy theme.

Collaboration, by definition, indicates a working together for a common good and the review team found ample evidence of this behavior in the school:

• LASW - (Looking At Student Work) gives teachers the opportunity to discuss the quality of student work as well as approaches to teaching content area, in a collegial environment.
• Common planning time occurs only once a week but enables teachers to gather and plan instruction of students/topics held in common.
• Literacy approach across the curriculum informs the teaching strategies of faculty in all content areas.
• Critical friends-strategies encourages them to look at educational issues in a non-threatening atmosphere. The principal took this training and shares it with his staff. He is presently seeking funding to extend the training to the staff.
• Extended literacy block of teaching and learning time is scheduled for all students in K through 2nd grade. These students start their day with Sustained Silent Reading/Writing.
• Westfield State College created a partnership with the Moseley school. The college faculty representative attested to the collaborative nature of this faculty. She reports that the Moseley school staff members with whom she works will not commit to decisions without taking into account the opinion of their colleagues and would always check back with them.
• The principal participates in all professional development activities with the faculty.
• Moseley faculty have asked Westfield State College to provide workshops on the topic of teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students due to an increase in enrollment of non-English speaking students.

Is there a school-wide focus on, and sufficient staff investment in, continued improvement of student performance?

The panel review team feels that there is both a school-wide focus and staff investment in continued student improvement at Moseley School.

The requirements of participation in the literacy initiative alone are strong evidence of this focus and commitment as was described in a previous section of this report.

However, the panel also feels that the Professional Development School Model partnership with Westfield State College is additional evidence of exemplary practice deserving of mention.

In 1998, the college invited teachers and administrators from all Westfield elementary schools to participate in a professional development program so as to better inform the college's own teacher training program as well as to assist the school. The Moseley faculty and staff was one of five schools to respond and to meet monthly, with a faculty advisor from Westfield State with stipends paid jointly by the college and by the school district. It was reported by the college that Moseley school stood out as the only school whose selected learning goals were so clearly focused that they chose appropriate professional development to meet their needs.

These meetings have continued into this school year but on a volunteer basis and on Friday mornings before school because that is the only morning not taken up by other faculty activities. The focus of the meetings now is on multi-cultural teacher knowledge because of an increase in enrollment of non-English speaking students. Although there are separate district wide bi-lingual schools, many non-English speaking parents prefer to send their children to Moseley because of its successful literacy programs.

does the school appear to have the capacity to host site visits and to participate in various activities to share effective strategies and practices with other schools in the state?

Moseley School has both the capacity to host site visits and to participate in statewide activities.

The school's physical plant dates back to 1914 but was beautifully renovated about eight years ago. Nevertheless, the facilities are not spacious enough to host large groups and indeed every area including corridor space is used for an educational activity.

The administration, faculty and staff have created, over the years, a learning community within the school with a collaborative approach to problem solving. Therefore, a good use of a visitors' time would be to sit in on committee meetings to view this process in action and to shadow the principal because his inclusive, collaborative approach to educational improvement seems to be the catalyst behind the many positive changes at Moseley.

Appendix A

Team Members

Dr. Karen Angello, Moseley Panel Coordinator, Consultant to the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, office of Accountability and Targeted Assistance

Joseph Trunk, Moseley Panel Chairperson, Education Consultant, SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA

Kathleen O'Connor-Abrams, Panel Member, Assistant Principal, Chelsea High School, Chelsea, MA

Anne Bradshaw, Panel Member, Assistant Superintendent, Falmouth, MA

Ann Deveney, Panel Member, Sr. ELA Program Director, Boston Public Schools

Appendix B

Exemplar School Candidate Site Visit Schedule

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.