Archived Information

Report of the School Panel Review of the
Paxton Center School, Paxton, 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 Paxton Center 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 Paxton Center School review is provided in Appendix A. A detailed schedule of the panel's activities is provided in Appendix B.

Paxton Center School Profile

In 2000, the Paxton Center enrolled 540 students in grades K-8 with approximately one-third of its students enrolled in grades six through eight. The school identified 97 percent of its students as white and two percent as Hispanic. Between 1997 and 2000 just one to three percent of the school's students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and no more than one percent have spoken a first language other than English. The school identified 7 students as Limited English Proficient.

Staffing

The Paxton Center's middle school students (grades six to eight) are taught by 15 full-time teachers and three teacher-aides for an approximate pupil-to-teacher ratio of 13 to 1. The central staff consists of Principal Louis Giantris, an assistant principal, and a school psychologist. The school reported that of the 15 full-time teachers, all are certified to teach in their current positions, and 8 (53%) have attained one or more master's degrees.

MCAS Results

Overall MCAS results showed steady improvement over the past three years, highlighted by a 10-point jump in Science & Technology exam between 1999 and 2000. In comparing the 1998 baseline score to the 1999 and 2000 average, scores improved by five points in English Language Arts, six points in Mathematics, and six points in Science & Technology. In 2000, 95 percent of the students scored in the Proficient and Advanced performance levels in English Language Arts, 62 percent scored in Proficient and Advanced in Mathematics, and 65 percent scored in Proficient and Advanced in Science & Technology. The participation rates were at 100 percent for both regular education and special education students in 1998 and 1999, but declined in 2000 to 96 percent for regular education students and 29 percent for special education students.

Panel Reponses 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 focus of the panel review team's visit was on grades 6-8 of Paxton Center School's K-8 program. While interviews and observations concentrated on the upper grades, the team found that it was difficult to isolate improvement efforts at the middle school level. Sixth through eighth grade faculty members expressed that they view their school as a K-8 school and that the new administration has made the school more cohesive.

Teachers and School Council members indicated that many of the improvement initiatives that have had the greatest impact at the school have occurred since the advent of the new administration (principal and assistant principal) two years ago. Panel review members elicited seven initiatives that are making a difference or that stakeholders feel will contribute to improved student performance since many of them are in the beginning stages of implementation. The first four efforts are school-based while the last three are District-wide. They include:

1. Teaming/Block Scheduling/Team Scheduling
2. Data Analysis
3. REAP
4. IIM
5. Alignment of curriculum with the state frameworks
6. 5-8 language style manual
7. K-10 Grammar Scope and Sequence

When the current principal arrived at the Paxton Center School at the beginning of the 1999-2000 academic year, he communicated an expectation that teachers work as a team. At the middle level, there are three teams - a sixth grade team, a 7-8 Humanities team, and a 7-8 Math/Science team. In planning for the following year, the principal gave these teachers a schedule on which specialist times were blocked out. It included provision for common planning time three hours a week. The teams were responsible for creating the rest of their schedule and were encouraged to make use of block scheduling. As a result, 6th grade blocks are for 55-60 minutes, while 7th and 8th grade blocks range from one to three hours in length. Teachers strive to help students see the connections between content areas, especially in the Integrated Humanities and Integrated Math/Science classes. As part of the evaluation process, the principal instituted goal setting as a team process. He expects each team to articulate two goals on which they will focus during the year, with the intent that they work together as a team to improve student learning. Teachers reported that they work together closely, they feel ownership in decision-making, and they are treated as professionals.

Teachers indicated that they have been more involved in data analysis since the new principal came on board. Students in the elementary and middle school grades take the MAT 7 annually, and each fall the principal has helped teachers interpret the scores, identify patterns of weak areas, and pinpoint individual students at risk. Teams then develop an action plan in response to their findings. They decide on goals that are applicable to each content area, develop specific objectives to meet the goals, and plan how to assess goal attainment. Therefore, faculty utilizes data to inform their instruction. Teachers have used data analysis to improve their teaching of writing as well. Recently, the District has administered a long composition assessment to grade 7 students in September. (Next year students will take it in grade 6.) Middle level language arts teachers analyzed students' long compositions using the MCAS rubric. As a result, the experience has helped teachers learn how to assess student writing and teach students how to read and analyze essays using the MCAS rubric.

One of the most significant innovations mentioned by faculty, administration and parents and described in the School Leader Questionnaire is the principal's introduction of the Regular Education Accommodation Plan (REAP). The principal spoke with passion about this early intervention process that is a means of targeting at-risk students. He has established a system to monitor the performance of approximately 30% of the school's population by creating a REAP for each child who either scored in the first 3 stanines on the MAT 7 or whose scores show a discrepancy of two or more stanines across subject areas. The REAP is a team process that requires teachers across disciplines, as well as specialists, to brainstorm instructional strategies to address gaps in individual student performance, write an accommodation plan, invite input from parents, and communicate to administrators, parents and the student the steps that will be taken to provide remedial assistance within the regular education program. This process, communicated in documents provided by the principal, places responsibility on classroom teachers for working as a team to solve problems. It communicates that the school is responsive, caring, paying attention to individual children's progress, and assessing its effectiveness based on measurement of students' progress. In addition, it eliminates the message that special education is the only vehicle to obtain student assistance and the belief that the problem is always within the student. In the words of one teacher, the REAP process has made her more observant and conscious of students' progress and broadened her repertoire of instructional strategies upon which to draw to meet individual student needs. The principal reported that the school's percentage of students on an IEP is fewer than 9%. If a student's needs require consideration under special education, teachers (both classroom and special education) and parents have the knowledge and documentation necessary to facilitate the evaluation process since they have already collaborated to provide the child assistance on a REAP.

Another significant initiative mentioned by teachers, students and parents is the Independent Investigation Method (IIM). It is a project-based learning method that helps teachers design research-based curriculum units and teaches students how to conduct research on topics of their choice related to their courses of study. Although only implemented at the beginning of the year, teachers stated emphatically that they believed IIM would contribute to improved student performance in writing. It is a step-by-step program, being used K-8, which teaches children how to ask questions, research to find the answers to their questions, and how to learn on their own. Teachers in all grade levels have implemented IIM research projects with their classes. In so doing, they have taught children how to: use a variety of resources, read in the content areas, use graphic organizers, put what they learned in their own words, write notes, and finally present what they have learned in interesting ways. The program builds from year to year and gives students and teachers a common language for approaching research with elementary-aged children. One of the reasons for teachers' enthusiasm was that use of IIM was a teacher-driven decision emanating from their determination that students' research skills on the MAT 7's were weak. As a result, they decided that one of their School Improvement Plan goals was to provide students with challenging learning activities that deal with real world issues and problems. In order to attain that goal, they decided to implement a research skills program school-wide in the 2000-2001 school year. Teachers refer to the state curriculum frameworks to guide student choices of what they will research, therefore eliminating repetition from year to year.

School council members were quick to mention that the District's unified curriculum is a strength that has impacted student performance. They stated that the District started aligning curriculum with the state curriculum frameworks early on and that the frameworks guide instruction. One of the results of the alignment effort has been the adoption of programs, such as Chicago Math (Everyday Math), that address state standards more directly. They initiated Everyday Math eight years ago and have been implementing it K-8 for four years. Teachers attribute their moderately high and improving math scores to the program's emphasis on problem solving, its focus on real life applications, its expectation that students understand the how and why of math, and its requirement that students write about their math thinking.

Teachers described two other District and school improvement efforts of note, both in the area of English Language Arts - the development of a language style manual for grades 5-8 and a K-10 grammar scope and sequence chart. Because both initiatives were developed within the last year, they are not responsible for current high English Language Arts test scores. However, teachers expressed confidence that they will improve student learning in English Language Arts because they articulate a writing standard to students and provide teachers with concrete guidelines for teaching writing. Both projects occurred because of high school teachers' desire to have a consistent standard in the high school and across the District. Every 5-8 student in the District has received a Language Style Manual. It communicates to students and teachers the middle school writing standard criteria, instructions for preparing a research paper, guidelines for writing a critique, business letters, and friendly letters. It also contains a language mechanics, grammar and usage handbook, a correction symbols guide, and no-excuse spelling list and literary terms list. Finally, the manual includes a section that explains what to expect from the MCAS and provides sample writing prompts, open-ended responses, and MCAS scoring rubrics. A committee completed the K-10 grammar scope and sequence chart in March 2001 in an effort to align the teaching of grammar with the state English Language Arts framework. The map articulates where grammar skills should be introduced, reinforced and mastered and will be distributed District-wide. A teacher involved in creating the scope and sequence stated that it clarifies expectations for students, and holds them accountable for using correct grammar. Teachers will embed grammar usage into criteria when they evaluate student writing.

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

As stated in the previous section, the school and District have initiated numerous improvement efforts within the last two years. Because faculty members are at a beginning stage of implementation, they cannot say that these initiatives have contributed to improved student performance results to date. However, some initiatives have had a direct impact on student learning. The unified curriculum, for instance, has clarified the scope and sequence of concepts, strategies and skills being taught and eliminated redundancy across grade levels. Because the curriculum is aligned with the state curriculum frameworks, teachers reported that they have a clear understanding of what to teach at each grade level.

The increased understanding of how to use data analysis to inform instruction has also impacted student performance results. Teachers at all grade levels have analyzed MAT 7 data annually, identified patterns of weakness and implemented a unified approach, by team, to address gaps in student performance. They have also identified individual students whose MAT 7 scores were low and developed a Regular Education Accommodation Plan that articulates the nature of accommodations and services that will be provided to help them improve. The principal indicated that most students put on a REAP are in grades K-4 so that interventions are put into effect as soon as gaps are identified. In this way, students develop a "can-do" attitude by gaining an understanding of how they learn and what they need to do to help themselves.

Teachers reported that the Chicago Math program, which spirals the introduction of mathematics concepts from grade to grade and focuses on problem solving and real life applications, has contributed significantly to building strong math skills in students. Because the program has been fully implemented for the past four years, teachers expect to see math scores continue to rise.

How did the school set about planning its improvement initiatives?

Both teacher and principal interviews and the School Improvement Plan explained that when a new administration started at Paxton Center School in the summer of 1999, the principal proposed, and teachers agreed, that the faculty revisits the existing School Improvement Plan that fall. During a professional day in October they decided that the plan did not provide faculty with the specificity and focus needed to effectively achieve their goals. By the end of the day, faculty and administration identified four goals and decided to set up goals study committees consisting of both faculty and non-faculty members. The committees met during the 1999-2000 school year and presented the faculty and School Council with objectives for the revised goals for the three year School Improvement Plan taking effect in 2000-2001. Each goal complemented a Wachusett Regional School District goal and included one or two doable action steps. Teachers mentioned that the improvement planning process was empowering and gave them ownership of the plan.

How did the school implement their planned initiatives?

The initiatives mentioned earlier were implemented in various ways, depending on their origin. Teaming and block scheduling, for example, was an expectation communicated by the new principal when he started in summer 1999. Teachers wanted common planning time, and the principal allowed teaching teams to take their specialist schedule and create their own teaching schedules from it.

District improvement efforts, such as the alignment of the District's curriculum with the state's curriculum frameworks, the creation of the 5-8 language style manual and the K-10 grammar scope and sequence, occurred at the direction of central office administration and the Humanities and Math/Science curriculum specialists. The grammar scope and sequence chart was the product of a course taught by an educator within the District. Teachers taking the course decided to develop the grammar curriculum map and then presented their end product to the administration that plans to implement it district-wide.

The principal has led the data analysis efforts each fall when the previous spring's MAT 7 results are available. After assisting faculty in the analysis of group data, the principal asked teaching teams to present in writing their key findings and to develop an action plan to address improvements in target areas. They then identified students who were at risk. In the case of the 7th and 8th grade humanities team, they analyzed results for all students in the 6th stanine and all students whose reading stanine was at least two stanines different than their math scores. Teachers and administration discussed individual students and determined which students needed a REAP.

The implementation of the IIM initiative came directly out of the school improvement planning process. Once the School Improvement Plan was approved and took effect, the building administration arranged for training by Active Learning Systems in the Independent Investigation Method during their October professional day. The consultant gave teams an assignment to create and implement a research based curriculum unit. The faculty met again in March to share student end products and rubrics used to evaluate those products. The consultant gave faculty feedback, and teachers have developed goals to master use of the model in future unit designs.

Did the school monitor the effectiveness of the initiatives?

Panel members heard evidence of varying means of monitoring the effectiveness of initiatives. While numerous improvement efforts are in the initial stages of implementation and monitoring processes have not yet been established, others, such as the curriculum alignment effort, have occurred in response to new state frameworks and examination of MCAS and MAT 7 data. Teachers and administrators spoke especially about their analysis of annual MAT 7 results to formulate both team action plans and individual regular education accommodation plans. The principal stated that he and the assistant principal monitor the progress of every student on a REAP by meeting with teachers at least annually to review students' gains, make modifications, or discontinue the REAP process for students who have made satisfactory progress. The District's administration of a writing standard assessment in grade 7 is another means of assessing student performance in writing.

Teacher focus group interviews revealed that in recent years teachers have expanded their repertoire of instructional strategies and in so doing have also expanded their assessment strategies. They have dissected MCAS practice tests with their students, administered similar types of tests, and evaluated students' learning using a variety of rubrics. As one teacher stated, "Everyone gives kids opportunities to be successful in different ways."

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

School personnel agreed that many of the initiatives being implemented at Paxton Center School are replicable. However, they conceded that improvement efforts take place over time and time has yet to tell whether some of the initiatives they feel are most significant will yield anticipated student performance gains. They stated that the faculty is flexible and works well together. They have the support of administration and have been empowered to share in important decisions affecting the instructional program.

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?

Leadership and staff demonstrated a shared understanding of the initiatives that have led to improvements in teaching and learning. While the principal was most vocal about those changes he has initiated in his two years there, faculty identified other initiatives that either preceded him or have occurred since he arrived but were District-led. However, there were common threads that panel members heard from teachers, parents, and administrators.

The teaming that takes place among faculty is one important factor that has contributed to teachers having a shared understanding. A teacher new to the middle level grades mentioned that her team works well together and she looks to the veteran on the team for guidance. Although block scheduling has decreased the amount of common planning time, teachers expressed the importance of having time to plan together. Communication within teams provides support and information to new teachers and allows them the opportunity to plan interdisciplinary connections.

The REAP process is another initiative that has built a shared understanding among regular and special education teachers, parents, and administrators. It facilitates communication between school and home so that everyone knows the accommodations teachers will be using to help at risk individual students make progress. It also promotes collaboration of staff and parents in their efforts to provide instructional interventions to help children succeed in school.

Numerous improvement efforts have been initiated precisely because they were intended to provide faculty and students with a common language and consistency across grade levels and subject areas. The IIM method, for instance, builds a common process for approaching research that is step-by-step and sequential, grades K-8. The Language Style Manual and Grammar Scope and Sequence chart are other examples that have provided students and teachers with a shared understanding of acceptable writing criteria.

Finally, interviews with School Council members and teachers revealed that alignment of the District curriculum to the state curriculum frameworks has resulted in a unified curriculum that enables faculty to use a common language when discussing teaching and learning priorities.

How effectively do leadership and staff articulate the connections between specific changes and improvement initiatives they have implemented, and the improvements made in teaching and learning?

Teachers at Paxton Center School implement many of the improvement initiatives as a team, school or District. Because of the unified approach to school improvement, they indicated efforts are likely to have a significant impact. They articulated, for instance, the connection between changes in curriculum and programs such as Chicago math and improvements in teaching and learning. Perhaps most significant in the minds of leadership and faculty is the connection between analysis of students' MAT 7 scores and specific action steps (i.e. team action plans and individual REAPs) that address gaps in performance.

The School Leader Questionnaire and interviews with administrators and teachers communicated the common belief that the creation of grade level teaching teams with common planning time has facilitated staff collaboration to plan flexible small group instruction in the basic skills areas of language arts and mathematics. In this way, they are able to provide for the differential needs of students in an inclusive environment.

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

The fact that there is a school-wide focus on improvement of student performance was quite evident during the panel review visit. All initiatives described by leadership and staff has focused on improving instruction or improving communication among teachers so that they can collaborate about teaching and learning concerns.

The District has also focused its efforts on student achievement as evidenced by the School Improvement Plan goals that complement District goals. The District has initiated numerous improvement efforts, such as aligning curriculum to state curriculum frameworks, adopting programs that match state standards, articulating a grammar scope and sequence and language style guidelines, and creating a writing standard assessment. Paxton teachers have enthusiastically participated in these efforts because they recognize how these efforts are benefiting teachers and students.

Teachers also indicated their investment in improvement initiatives because the administration treats them as professionals and seeks their input. They share in decision-making and are looked to for their instructional leadership. One teacher, for example, shared how the principal engenders support by asking teachers to pilot programs. They then become experts who take on leadership roles by training other teachers. This empowerment has given teachers a feeling of ownership in school improvement efforts.

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?

The Paxton Center School appears to have the capacity to host site visits and share best practices with other schools. School personnel would welcome visitors from other schools to observe, talk with teachers, and learn about specific effective strategies. The principal indicated that teachers could also make presentations about specific initiatives at other schools if invited. He would encourage faculty and they would be eager to take on a leadership role since some already assume such responsibilities as teaching other faculty within the District during professional development course offerings. It would be expected that visitor activities would not interfere with the school's instructional program and individual time with teachers would be scheduled for after school hours.

A building renovation and addition project has recently been completed. The facility sparkles and student work is prominently displayed. IIM research projects, for instance, greet visitors in the entryway. There is room to accommodate visiting groups and the willingness on the part of staff to share what is helping students succeed at Paxton Center School.

Appendix A

Team Members

Dr. Jack Monbouquette, Paxton Center School Panel Coordinator, Consultant, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA

Dr. Susan Rubel, Paxton Center School Panel Chairperson, Coordinator of the International Network of Principals' Centers at Harvard University, Consultant for School Works, Beverly, MA

Jack O'Keefe, Team Member, Grade 7-8 technology education/math teacher, Kennedy School, Somerville, MA

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.