Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

Report of Fact Finding Review
The English High School
Boston Public Schools

Executive Summary

During the Fact Finding Review at The English High School of the Boston Public Schools (BPS) conducted November 18 -26, 2002, the team concluded that the school has a number of deficiencies that have contributed to ongoing low student achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics on state assessments. The team also determined that there are areas of strength and potential strength that could be instrumental in improving the level of student accomplishment. In examining the programs and practices at The English High School across all seven areas of inquiry, the team identified eleven key findings that affect the performance of students. The Team's findings are indicated below:

1. The intended Boston Public School (BPS) curriculum is academically sound and aligned with state Frameworks. Better monitoring is needed to ensure that the curriculum is properly implemented.
   • BPS provides standards and programs that are aligned with state standards.
   • Teachers use a variety of documents to plan daily lessons. The team found these to be generally in alignment with state standards.
   • A number of district and building staff are responsible for the oversight of curriculum matters, but there is inadequate coordination of their efforts to promote a common view of effective curriculum implementation.
   
   
   
2. Although administrators frequently observe teacher performance in the majority of classrooms, the school is not systematically collecting data about classroom practice that can be used as part of improvement planning.
   • The majority of classroom visits made by administrators are not consistently documented, leading to the loss of an important source of data on practices that directly impact student achievement.
   • School leaders have only anecdotal and informal information on the quality of curriculum implementation on which to base decisions about program strengths and weaknesses.
   
   
   
3. The school is in the process of adopting instructional practices to improve student performance. There are multiple areas for improvement in classroom instruction that affect student performance.
   • Higher expectations and more challenging classes: Of the 67 classroom observations conducted, over 50% were found not to be challenging.
   • Inconsistent homework policy: Across the majority of classes observed, there was a lack of consequences for incomplete homework.
   • Lack of probing questions: Good use of formative assessment, including both recall and questions that would require students to explain and expand on the topics being taught, was found in only 32 of 67 classroom visits.
   • Acceptance of students' late arrivals to classes.
   • Insufficient variety of instructional methodologies for the block schedule: The most dominant pedagogical style observed in 39 of 67 classroom visits was teacher-directed instruction. The second most dominant behavior was independent student work, often sheet work. This was noted in 32 of 67 observations. This instructional profile is unlikely to address the students' deficiencies in MCAS questions that require explanation and interpretation.
   
   
   
4. To date, the school has not developed a system to document the impact of professional development activities on instruction and student performance.
   • Recent professional development activities include content area meetings, Smaller Learning Communities meetings, BPS professional development workshops, and courses in Reader's and Writer's Workshop, Math Connections, block scheduling and instruction within the block, Teaching for Understanding, coaching, and self-determined professional development.
   • The school is not collecting data on the effectiveness of these professional development activities.
   
   
   
5. The school has adopted an aggressive schedule to conduct formal evaluations of all teachers this year to improve instructional quality and to address serious past inconsistencies.
   • A number of the school's experienced teachers have not had a formal evaluation in many years. Approximately one-third of the staff received a formal evaluation in 2000-2001. During 2001-2002, about one-fourth of all teachers received a formal evaluation.
   • In contrast, to date this year, all of the school's provisional teachers were evaluated as required by the district prior to November 15 and plans are in place to evaluate all 93 teachers by the end of the school year. This represents a significant improvement in monitoring that begins to address the quality of instruction throughout the school.
   
   
   
6. There are many individuals and groups in the school looking at student data for a variety of purposes. The school has not developed a systematic process that analyzes multiple measures of student performance in order to identify specific learning gaps.
   • The Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), Headmaster, Teacher Leadership Team, Chief Academic Officer, and some groups of faculty have examined MCAS reports to identify general areas of student weakness.
   • While the various findings are consistent in identifying concerns about student language skills, there has not been a parallel analysis of the variety of other available student assessments to corroborate or expand the school's understanding of its students' learning needs.
   • While all of the above activities are positive, they are not coordinated so that the school benefits from a coherent review of multiple sources of student performance data that can be used to determine if curriculum programs and instructional practices are effectively serving English High School students.
   
   
   
7. The school has completed the beginnings of an improvement plan. Progress to date includes spring 2002 brainstorming and the initial identification of needs, MCAS review by administrators and a small group of teachers, and a recent professional development day that engaged the entire faculty in looking at MCAS results. However, no review of school practices and their impact on or linkage to student performance has been conducted. Goals, action plans and persons responsible have yet to be determined.
   • The documents presented to the Fact Finding team include only the first steps toward a comprehensive School Improvement Plan. The school has yet to conduct a thorough analysis of all its sources of student performance data to identify fundamental root causes of student learning gaps.
   • While groups around the school have independently reviewed data, in interviews and presentations, the administration confirmed that no other data beyond MCAS had been reviewed to date as part of the school improvement planning process and that no actions plans have been developed. The school's efforts have yet to provide a sufficient foundation to guide the identification of strategies likely to have a positive impact on student achievement by attacking root causes of their learning issues.
   
   
   
8. To date, there has not been sufficient analysis, monitoring and documentation to determine whether changes in the school's organization and operations are efficient and effective in the support of improved student achievement.
   • The school has the following key organizational structures, personnel, and practices: Smaller Learning Communities, block scheduling, Instructional Leadership Team, chief academic officer, several program directors, assistant headmasters, math and literacy coaches, teacher leaders, a whole school change coach on loan from the district office, content area meetings, and common planning time in which teachers participate in both SLC and departmental meetings.
   • Smaller Learning Communities are in the second year of implementation but the expected improvements in learning time and teaching practice have yet to be documented.
   • The block schedule was introduced this year and feedback is limited to date on its impact on student and teacher motivation and attitude toward learning.
   • Math and Literacy Coaches are working within some teacher's classrooms and meeting with a larger group of teachers. At present, there is no evaluation of the effectiveness of the support provided by the coaches.
   • A meeting structure that includes content area meetings and SLC meetings on a regular basis is in place, but an assessment of the value of these meetings in improving teacher expertise has not yet been undertaken.
   
   
   
9. A promising practice has been for school leaders to work with the literacy coach to develop a common understanding of best practices in Reader's and Writer's Workshops.
   • Based on the team's interviews with administrators, discussion of best practices in the Workshop during administrative meetings has begun to create a common understanding of what administrators should look for in effective implementation of the workshop approach.
   
   
   
10. While the administration has articulated a process for regular education teachers to identify special education students and learn about their Individual Education Plans (IEPs), none of the regular education teachers interviewed reported having this information. This makes it unlikely that appropriate accommodations are being made for these students' learning needs to be met.
    • While teachers receive class lists that indicates whether students have special learning needs, none of those interviewed were aware of the specifications of individual educational plans for their students.
    • The special education director described being available for teacher questions but indicated few teachers sought out assistance, suggesting a gap in communication between regular education and special education staff.
    
    
    
11. There is a tension between district mandated or strongly recommended practices and site based management and accountability for student progress.
    • While the team found the district mandated strategies to be reasonable and representative of best practice, the fact that these approaches are generally mandated creates a situation in which accountability for school performance is in part dependent on district initiatives and in part on the successful implementation of those initiatives at the school level.
    • Staff acceptance and commitment to new programs selected by the district is hampered in English High School by the fact that staff often feel that significant decisions on strategies are out of their hands. Staff beliefs about their own students' needs conflict with some district curriculum selections.
    • The school and district lack a productive forum to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve this tension.
    
    
    

Next >