Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

School Panel Review Report
Patrick F. Gavin Middle School
Boston Public Schools

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 Patrick F. Gavin Middle School met this criteria at both the fourth and eighth grades and was one of five middle schools selected for panel review in spring, 2002. The panel review was conducted on April 2-3, 2002.

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(s)?

The panel's responses to the two key questions that defined the scope of its 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 it. A list of panel members who participated in the 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 Patrick F. Gavin Middle 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.

Patrick F. Gavin Middle School Profile

The Patrick F. Gavin Middle School is one of 20 Boston middle schools serving students in grades six through eight. The school enrolled approximately 658 students in 2001, and the school reported that 50% of the students were Black, 25% White, 12% Hispanic, 11% Asian, and 2% Native American. For 35% of the student body, English is not the first language (FLNE). Seventeen percent of the students are considered Limited English Proficient (LEP). Gavin is a School-wide Title I School, with 82% of the students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, more than triple the state average.

There was a gain of 84 students between 1998 and 2001. The school report of February 15, 2002 reflects a population of 134 students in fourteen substantially separate special education classrooms, and an additional 96 special education students receive services in resource rooms. One hundred forty-one ESL students were noted in this same report. The 2000 school-year attendance rate for students was 89.7 as compared to 91.8 for the district and 93.9 for the state.

Staffing

Patrick F. Gavin Middle School's staff includes the principal, two assistant principals, 1 nurse, 2 student support coordinators, 2 evaluation team facilitators, and 57 teachers. Twenty-three teachers have multiple certifications and 43 hold Master's Degrees. Six teachers are on waiver. Only two teachers assigned to teach math are certified in math.

MCAS Results

Gavin Middle School "Failed to Meet" improvement expectations in English Language Arts and Mathematics for Cycle 1 (1998-2000), and the overall improvement rating was "Critically Low." The 2001 percentages of students scoring in the Failing/Warning in ELA (42%) was higher than 1998 (33%), and Math (84%) was nearly the same as 1998 (84%). These rates are well above the district failure rates, which in turn, are above the state averages of students in the Failing/Warning performance categories in both content areas.

The data reflect virtually no increases in students moving into the Proficient or Advanced categories in English Language Arts or Mathematics between 1998 and 2001.

Panel Reponses To The Key Questions

KEY QUESTION 1: does The School Have A Sound Plan For Improving Student Performance?

Yes. The panel found that the Whole School Improvement Plan (WSIP) is sufficient to guide the school in its improvement efforts. The WSIP is guided by the district's Six Essentials: Instructional Focus on Literacy and Math; a Targeted Professional Development Plan for Literacy and Math; and Best Teaching Practices for Literacy and Math. Boston has divided its schools into four "cohorts" and assisted the schools in each cohort with the development and implementation of the WSIP. The Gavin is in the last group to adopt the WSIP, Cohort 4, and has just had its plan accepted by the district as of 2001.

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 staff has reviewed formative data including the looking-at-student-work protocol (LASW) and analyzed data from the MCAS and the Stanford 9. As referenced in the plan and confirmed through the teacher focus groups and other staff interviews, the staff has been given many opportunities to analyze data during training days specifically set aside for that purpose. In particular, sessions provided by the University of Massachusetts-Boston were credited with providing staff a detailed MCAS analysis which included the disaggregation of student performance data. The review of disaggregated data directly impacted school programming decisions.

The school has also considered its staffing needs as part of the WSIP process. A review of the staff roster and interviews with administration indicates that only two teachers are certified in math and two in social studies. The administration has addressed this issue by providing professional development, especially in the math content area, that will lead to math certification. This program at the University of Massachusetts is open to all staff as an option for gaining an additional area of certification. In addition, there are "coaches" who provide direct services to the schools and who are supported by the district. The change and literacy coaches are available to work at the school several times a week, and the math coach is available once a week.

As part of the preparation of the WSIP, a subcommittee of the instructional leadership team (ILT) was formed. (The ILT is made up of teacher representatives across grades and subject areas, administrators, external coaches, and partnership representatives from University of Massachusetts.) The subcommittee reviewed resources and staffing patterns. The resulting analysis was discussed by staff, and staffing patterns were changed to meet the needs of students. Interviews with staff, administration and the ILT, and a review of the resources subcommittee's reports indicate that these changes have had a positive impact.

The school's curriculum has also been reviewed and found to be aligned with the state curriculum frameworks. This is evidenced by student work throughout the building. Standards and scoring rubrics are posted alongside work samples throughout the school. Use of the standards is also part of LASW protocol.

As reported in interviews with the superintendent, principal, change coach and teacher focus groups, current instructional practices are reviewed regularly by the ILT which confers with teachers during their subject area meetings (SAM). During the reflective part of the SAM agenda, regular classroom observations are discussed. Performance data and progress on the WSIP are also reviewed during SAM.

As part of the WSIP process, the principal, members of the ILT and staff organized in small committees and used a rubric to rate the school's performance on the following Six Essentials addressed by the WSIP process: Instructional Focus on Literacy and Math; a Targeted Professional Development Plan for Literacy and Math; and Best Teaching Practices for Literacy and Math. The analysis allowed the staff to identify evidence regarding the status of school programs and services and thereby reveal areas of strength and weakness. Additional programmatic analysis included reviewing the structure and schedule of the school day and year. A concern that came out of this analysis by administration and teachers was that the 6-day schedule resulted in grade 8 students receiving one less day of English language arts instruction. To address this concern, the class has been extended to a 90-minute block. All students in grades 6,7 and 8 are now scheduled for a double English language arts block of 114 minutes per day.

A review of the WSIP, the teacher survey and content from staff interviews indicates that the priorities for the Gavin School are literacy and math. These areas are being addressed though a variety of programs and services. Gear-Up, a five-year federal grant targeting middle schools through connections to universities, funds staff and materials for professional development, parent involvement, data review, and student remediation through extended day programs. Tutors from a number of local colleges also provide MCAS remediation to students. Discipline was also identified as a key issue in the teacher survey, interviews and student focus groups. To address this, the Gavin will start using Cooperative Discipline next year as a whole school approach.

In summary, the panel found the use of the WSIP process and its district-directed Six Essentials has helped the school identify and articulate clear areas for improvement.

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 goals in the WSIP are directly tied to student, staff and program needs based on an analysis of formative and summative data. While the objectives are clearly tied to the findings, they are not all measurable nor do they all present reasonable timelines for completion. For example, to address school climate, the objectives require the school to: "Pursue a consultant to deliver workshops in Cooperative Discipline Model" and "Develop a common code of conduct" (Whole School Improvement Plan, Page 11).
No timeline is provided for these activities, and it is not clear how the school would define a successful outcome to these efforts.

The plan's objectives have a strong focus on teaching and learning. For example, as part of its focus on literacy and math, the school provides professional development in critical reading strategies, such as synthesizing and inferring, guided and independent writing, and integrating writing in math. Additionally, math teachers will continue training in the Connected Math program with an emphasis on meeting the needs of special needs students. Other strategies specifically focused on teaching and learning include additional assistance of BPS math coaches and staff from the University of Massachusetts, continued use of LASW protocol and reflective practices in subject area meetings.

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

A variety of strategies are employed by all staff that should lead to improved student results. In interviews and focus groups, teachers indicated that the LASW protocol has been essential in understanding student performance and adapting teaching strategies. Adopted strategies are based on constant analysis of student achievement data. The teacher survey indicated that this ability to adjust strategies was developed from analysis of the Stanford 9. The staff has begun to adapt new strategies for their identified areas of math and literacy as a result of intensive professional development and support by coaches.

The programs or practices they are using, such as Connected Math, LASW, and Readers' and Writers' Workshop, are all nationally recognized programs that have been shown through research to impact student achievement. The instructional methodologies that are recommended for implementing these programs are aligned with the areas of weakness in student achievement identified by the school.

D. Are the school's written improvement planning documents clear and specific enough to guide their implementation of planned improvement initiatives?

Planning documents referenced above in response to questions A-C are in writing. However, the format does not include statements of problems. Instead, the WSIP format calls for responses to the Six Essentials. This format appears to work for the school, as staff clearly understood the plan and what they needed to do to implement it.

Methods for evaluating progress were clear, but benchmarks for progress were not clear. Action steps are listed for each of the six essentials, but the timeline, staffing responsibilities and evaluation are only clear in the professional development chart.

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

It is clear from interviews, focus groups, and the plan itself, that an active role was taken by all staff in the development in this plan. The Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) has the major responsibility of overseeing subcommittees who produced evidence packets detailing their analysis of school strengths and needs. The staff is using the plan to guide their strategies and is clear about their role and responsibilities for improving student learning at the Gavin.

The only group not widely represented in the process were parents. The ILT members stated they had only one parent member. The parent focus group revealed no real understanding of the plan or process among those parents.

While there have been previous school improvement plans, this was the first year (2001-2002) the Gavin came into a Boston School Department "cohort." Being a part of Cohort 4 has given the Gavin a different level of expectation, and this plan should be considered their baseline plan for Boston's Whole School Change process.

Constant review of progress is undertaken in ILT meetings and subject area meetings. It should be noted that the superintendent of the Boston Public Schools has undertaken a direct role in overseeing the Gavin's process by being available to the principal and staff and observing classes and processes. He serves as the director of supervision of the Gavin Middle School during this school year.

KEY QUESTION 2: Are the Conditions in Place for the Successful Implementation of the Improvement Plan?

Yes. The panel found that the conditions for the successful implementation of the plan are in place. Becoming a member of Cohort 4 has provided direct oversight by central office staff and additional staff support such as coaches. External assistance through federal grants such as Gear-Up, and local programs such as the Thompson's Island "Outward Bound" program augment internal improvement efforts.

A. Does the have effective leadership and sound management?

School leaders communicate effectively as evidenced by the continual dialog of the ILT, the building level director of instruction, and the change coach. This process creates a climate of shared leadership both in the school and with external partners such as the University of Massachusetts.

The staff survey indicates confidence in the principal. He participates on the ILT and helps promote a nurturing and positive school climate. While it appears that the district provided the impetus for this change process, the leadership has begun to embrace its implementation. However, one weakness of leadership is the need to involve and empower parents in the process as evidenced by the interviews with the parent focus group, teachers and administrators.

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

Staff interviews and focus groups, meetings with the ILT and the school council indicate a strong agreement with the school's assessment of identified needs. They actively participate in professional development, ongoing assessment and communicate regularly to further the goals of the plan. Throughout the school, evidence could be seen of the staff's ongoing efforts to align the curriculum with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. Standards are regularly posted next to student work on display. The change coach was observed visiting classes and providing technical assistance.

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

The district leaders are well informed of the needs of the school. The superintendent has taken an active role in the direction and implementation of the WSIP. He visits regularly, observing classes and meeting with the principal. He has established clear expectations for the principal and staff to address low student performance.

The district has provided additional leadership through various coaches in math and literacy and district personnel who review the implementation of the plan. In staff and administrator interviews, the assistance of the district leadership was seen as supportive and helpful.

Conclusion

The panel finds that the Gavin School has a sound improvement plan that should lead to increased student achievement. The school has conducted a thorough analysis of needs through the WSIP and subsequently adopted appropriate strategies for improvement.

The conditions appear to be in place to address the identified needs. With the exception of parents, all stakeholders can articulate the improvement plan and are actively engaged in its implementation. The school enjoys significant support from the district both in the planning and implementation of WSIP.

Appendix A
Team Membership

Karen Angello, Panel Coordinator; Consultant to ESE
Joseph Trunk, SchoolWorks Consultant, co-chair
Ann Sheehan, SchoolWorks Consultant, co-chair
Susan Cullen, Title I Director, Northbridge Public Schools
Marcia Pertuz, Teacher, Amigos School, Cambridge Public Schools
Jeffrey Rubin, Special Education Director, Waltham Public Schools

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.

Day 1

Day 2 : All activities take place in the school