Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

School Panel Review Report
The English High 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 English High School met this criterion at the tenth grade and was one of two high 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 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 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 English High 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.

The English High School Profile

The English High School is a grade 9-12 comprehensive high school that serves 1291 students. In 2001, the school reported that 51% of its students are Black, 39% Hispanic, 8% White, and 2% are Asian. Seventy-one percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 38% are Limited English Proficient, and English is not the first language for 53% of the student body.

Enrollment has been fairly stable over the past few years, as has distribution of the student population across subgroups. The percentage of low-income students has increased by 20% over the past three years. The 10% adjusted dropout rate for 1999-2000 is lower than eight other high schools in the district, and has been relatively stable since 1995-1996. It is just slightly higher than the rate for the district (9.4 in 2000) and 7% higher than the state rate (3.5 in 2000).

Staffing

In addition to the principal, a chief academic officer and 3 (non-teaching) assistant principals, 4 guidance counselors, and 5 aides, there are 87 teachers serving the student population of 1,291.

MCAS Results

The school demonstrated critically low performance on MCAS tests and failed to meet its expectations for improvement overall and in each of the three content areas tested in Cycle 1 (from 1998 to 2000). In 2001, the Warning performance level of students in both English Language Arts and Mathematics, and the percentage of students scoring in Proficient appear to be inversely proportional to students' length of time in the school. The eighty-three percent of the 10th graders tested last year who reported entering the school in 9th grade had Warning rates of 60% in ELA and 71% in Math, and scored in Proficient and Advanced (P & A) at rates of 13% in ELA and 7% in Math. While the 15% who reported entering in grade 10 showed Warning rates of 43% in ELA and 62% in Math, the percentage scoring in Proficient/Advanced was 25% in ELA and 14% in Math.

There are notable achievement gaps in MCAS scores: In 2001 male students are failing by about 20% more than female students in ELA and by about 10% more than females in Math. Special education students' failure rates were 88% in ELA and 97% for Math. Eighty-nine percent of the 38 LEP students Failed Math, while 68% of LEP students were not tested in ELA.

Sixty-five percent of the Hispanic students tested in 2001 scored in the Failing category in both ELA and Math; Black students' Failing rates were at 60% in ELA and 76% in Math, compared to Failing rates of 25% ELA and 38% for Math for White students.

Panel Reponses To The Key Questions

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

The English High School has a reasonably sound plan for improving student performance. While the school's multiple planning documents are not cohesively linked into a single plan that outlines the school's priority efforts, many elements of a sound school improvement plan are present in the multiple documents reviewed, including the Whole School Improvement Plan, Smart Goals, Self-Assessment Report, and the Bain Organizational Review.

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 administration at English High School has analyzed multiple sources of student performance data. The Headmaster and the Chief Academic Officer have reviewed MCAS and Stanford 9 data to identify areas of student weaknesses in English language arts and mathematics and engaged teachers on the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) in looking at these data. The school has yet to engage a broad base of teachers in using data to plan curriculum or evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs.

While the district summaries provide sufficient quantitative data, the district does not provide an analysis of performance trends. The Headmaster and Chief Academic Officer at the school level have completed their own analysis. Their analysis of MCAS scores and Stanford 9 test scores has helped inform the school's improvement plan. The Headmaster also indicated that he will attend a workshop on looking at data to improve his own skills in this area. Although data analysis is used by school administrators and teachers on the leadership team to inform the School Improvement Plan, there was no evidence of a formal process to involve a broad base of teachers in examining student data to identify specific strengths and weaknesses.

Based on test results and guidance from the district's whole school reform model, the school has established literacy and math as its focus. The school has also used data to target academically at risk ninth grade students to receive targeted instruction from the Literacy Specialist. Realizing that last year's Stanford 9 scores did not produce favorable results, the math department implemented test prep activities linked to the SAT9 and MCAS in order to bridge the gap between the anticipated benefit of the new mathematics curriculum and short term test results.

While only teachers in the Instructional Leadership Team have been significantly engaged in looking at standardized performance data, the school is beginning to involve a broader base of teachers in looking at local assessments. For example, teachers analyze data from practice writing prompts to identify student weaknesses. The findings from these analyses are used to guide instruction. A goal for the school is for teachers to begin using previously released MCAS open response questions in all content areas to help prepare students for future MCAS tests.

The English High School has also utilized district-wide data. For example, district research indicates that high school students across the district feel alienated in large, impersonal school settings. The school believes that this alienation contributes to student's weaknesses in literacy and math and has implemented Small Learning Communities (SLC) to allow students to establish closer relationships with staff, lessen feelings of alienation, and improve student performance.

The school's review of data also indicates that students in the Bilingual Program struggle in literacy and math. The school attributes this to the fact that the Bilingual Program at the school is the largest in the city but is not able to articulate why size is a critical issue. The school is trying to address this weakness by providing students with work to develop both English language literacy skills and their native language literacy skills.

The school also described attendance issues, both absences and tardiness, as contributing to poor student performance. The school has responded by revising their attendance policy with a provision that involves parents in the development of a plan for their students who may have excessive absences or tardiness.

In an effort to remedy the identified weaknesses, the school has added a Chief Academic Officer and Program Directors to focus specifically on academics. Coaches in both mathematics and literacy and a Literacy Specialist are in place to assist teachers. The school has also recognized the benefits of a double block of English language arts for ninth graders, and expanded the double block program to tenth graders during the 2001-2002 school year. When the school reviewed its data, it recognized a growing strength in the area of writing mechanics and made the decision to discontinue the Writer's Express Program and substitute the Writer's Workshop Program. Data suggested that English High students' writing needs are in the areas of content and idea development, which are more fully addressed in the Writer's Workshop program.

In general, a central leadership team is using data to identify student weaknesses and thereby identify needed improvements in teaching and learning. Further work is needed to develop an approach to data that includes a broader base of teachers in analysis and that uses data to maintain a focus on improvement objectives outlined in the school's improvement plan. (See response to questions 1B below.)

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 improvement objectives outlined in English High Schools' plan are based on the analysis of school performance data and guided by the six essentials of Boston's whole school change model. The district's initiative to focus on literacy a nd math is clearly specified in the school's improvement plan. The plan outlines six essentials in both areas, which include: an instructional focus, looking at student work and data, targeted professional development, best teaching practices, aligning resources, and involving parents and community. Each improvement objective specified in the plan is grounded in the school's data analysis of performance within one of the six essentials.

While the district template outlines the essential areas for school improvement, the panel found that the plan's objectives were not sufficiently focused on measurable improvements in student performance. The link between the analysis of poor student performance and improvement objectives is reasonably clear in the plan, but the objectives are neither specific nor written in terms of student performance. For example, "We will continue to train teachers in Literacy Across the Curriculum." Training teachers is an important strategy in school improvement planning, but the goal does not explain how teacher training will result in changes in classroom instruction or, more importantly, changes in student performance.

The objectives are measurable in terms of monitoring implementation of strategies. The district template asks schools to rate themselves on a continuum, with one the lowest and four the highest, on their progress toward meeting improvement objectives. For example, in literacy, the plan states as evidence, "Two teachers were trained in Writer's Workshop and will receive additional training this summer." In Math, "The math coach and math specialist modeled Math Connections in classrooms regularly leading to good progress for all our ninth grade staff." Although connected to identified areas of student weakness, these examples demonstrate that there is no specified link between teacher training, classroom change and further improvement in student performance.

The plan also outlines next steps that the school will take to focus on each essential within Boston's model of whole school change. However it is unclear how these next steps will be implemented and monitored. Identifiable progress measures are unclear. The plan in literacy states, for example, "The administrative team will continue to spend significant time in classrooms and provide feedback to support instructional focus throughout the 2001-2002 school year." This step does not specifically outline how much time will be spent in classes or how feedback will be communicated.

Another example, in literacy, states, "Starting in September 2001, the Instructional Leadership Team will focus on instructional issues and continue to monitor and evaluate the restructuring process." This objective is vague, as it does not specifically describe what the instructional issues are or how the impact of restructuring will be measured or evaluated.

In summary, the school's improvement objectives are based on the analysis of student performance data but are not written in terms of student performance. Implementation benchmarks are not always sufficiently defined or measurable.

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

If implemented effectively, English High School's identified strategies are likely to lead to improved student achievement; however, success depends heavily on building sufficient support for the plan among teachers and engaging them in sufficient training to successfully implement the strategies. The Panel had concerns that present professional development opportunities may be insufficient to do so.

For example, the plan specifies, "The school will introduce Readers/Writers Workshop strategies consistently in the Small Learning Communities and will continue to train teachers in Literacy Across the Curriculum." The plan also states that, "There were eight sessions of Literacy Across the Curriculum attended by seven teachers from different content areas. Two teachers were trained in Writers Workshop and will receive additional training this summer." While the school is making an effort to engage more staff, a larger number of teachers must, in the opinion of the panel, receive training in order to meet improvement goals on a school wide basis.

The school is also making progress implementing appropriate math strategies. For example, the plan specifies that the school will provide yearlong staff development for math teachers to implement the new Math Connections curriculum. The math coach and the specialist have modeled Math Connections in classrooms regularly, demonstrating progress toward this goal. The school has yet to evaluate whether or not modeling has led to changes in classroom practice and the proper implementation of the Math Connections curriculum. For this strategy to effectively improve student results, the school's evaluation of progress is vital.

In summary, the English High school improvement plan outlines strategies that can lead to improved student achievement, but these strategies can only successfully improve student performance if they are supported by a systematic professional development process that engages a sufficient number of teachers. The school is making progress implementing such a system, but it was not clear to the panel if their rate of progress was adequate to meet pressing needs to improve student performance.

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

The English High School's improvement documents provide some direction for implementation of planned improvement initiatives. The school makes good use of multiple planning documents which include the Whole School Improvement Plan, Smart Goals, Self-Assessment Report, and the Bain Organizational Review, but within some of the planning documents not all goals are clearly stated as measurable objectives to guide decision-making. The plan outlines a reasonable course of action, including action steps, the individuals responsible for carrying them out, and the required resources, but lacks measurable targets and a linkage between all improvement planning documents.

The school's plan is clearly focused on the identified weaknesses of math and literacy within the six essentials identified by the district. The Self-Assessment report logs activities related to the school's improvement initiatives and lists the next steps the school will take for continuous improvement. Looking at student work in literacy, for example, the plan states as evidence, "the majority of teachers in the building have been exposed to examining student work using different protocols." This evidence gives the school direction to develop the next implementation step, which in this example requires that "each small learning community, during their common planning time, will adopt a protocol to examine student work." The plan also makes a good effort in identifying the appropriate professional development needed to guide the school's improvement efforts. The plan describes the activity, the individual responsible for providing, the audience, and the provider of financial resources.

Although providing reasonable direction and logging of activities, the plan does not clearly describe a strategy for measuring the degree and quality of implementation. For example, most of the training outlined in the plan is left up to one to three individuals who receive initial training in the described methodology. The plan does not specify the accommodations needed for those teachers to have the time to properly train others. Furthermore, the plan states that teachers will receive feedback from administration walkthroughs, but more specificity is needed in describing, for example, what that feedback looks like and how many walkthroughs administrators will complete.

In summary, the school's written improvement plan documents provide reasonable direction and tracking of activities but could be more specific about the specifics of implementation and how progress is to be evaluated beyond a simple logging of activities. The plan is clearly focused on identified needs in math and literacy, outlines progress and next steps, and identifies the professional development needed to guide improvement. The plan is not sufficiently explicit about the details of implementation or evaluation of the quality of the work and its impact on classroom practice and student achievement.

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

The English High Schools' improvement plan was developed through a process that will support its implementation, but in order for implementation to be successfully supported by all stakeholders, a more inclusive process targeting all staff and more parents is needed. The process presently involves the central office, building administrators and the school's Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) in significant activities. This centralized leadership team has also made good use of data analysis to develop the school plan. It does not appear, however, that all teachers were sufficiently included in the planning process. Parents and students are not included explicitly in the improvement planning process.

The district provides strict elements of the framework for the school improvement plan and the targets for improvement. Standards and benchmarks are set by the district, and the deputy superintendent, cluster leaders, and instructional leaders work with principals to revise and improve their school plan as needed. The final approval for the plan is made by the deputy superintendent.

The Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) is involved in working on the planning document. The ILT examined data and utilized their common planning time to discuss the school's plan with teachers. Teachers expressed that the majority of the staff were not involved in the actual development of the plan. The Headmaster explained that there is staff resistance to change. Therefore the plan was written by the ILT, a group of teachers who are open to discussing and supporting changes. Leadership recognizes the need to increase staff involvement and dedication to improvement efforts.

In summary, the school has a process that is district-driven for developing its school improvement plan. Although this process reasonably supports the plan's implementation, a more inclusive process that involves more staff involvement is currently lacking.

KEY QUESTION 2: Are The Conditions In Place For The Successful Implementation Of The Improvement Plan(s)?

Although there are some concerns about staff buy-in and sustaining the level of support necessary to make significant improvements, the conditions for successfully implementing the improvement initiatives at English High School generally appear to be in place. The district provides guidance and support, and the school leaders and a select group of staff are making progress toward the implementation of the school's improvement plan. Ongoing district support and continued efforts to involve more staff are vital for the school improvement plan to have a positive impact on student learning.

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

The English High School has effective leadership and sound management. The Headmaster is clearly respected by staff, and he has identified a critical mass of staff members to serve on the Instructional Leadership Team. School leaders provide specific instructions to staff that are focused on high expectations. High expectations are communicated through teacher evaluations, and leaders recognize two priorities: getting the commitment of staff to the plan's goals and building a positive school climate. Parents interviewed during the panel visit are confident that positive change will occur over time.

School leaders have made great strides in communicating effectively with all staff. The Headmaster has an open door policy. He also sends out the Headmaster's Bulletin to communicate with the faculty. One of the most important improvement initiatives implemented by the Headmaster has been the creation of Small Learning Communities (SLC). Although the SLCs are a work in progress, they have helped create better communication between teachers and administrators. One assistant headmaster is assigned to each of the four SLCs and meets with their SLC faculty four times a week. The bilingual coordinator supervises one SLC, and the three assistant heads supervise the others. All assistant heads report to the Headmaster.

Currently the school's decision-making process is fairly centralized in the Instructional Leadership Team. A number of teachers said to the panel that they have not had an opportunity to provide input regarding improvement initiatives. Not all teachers in each SLC have a schedule that allows them to join their colleagues during team meetings. This limits the sense of ownership and the participation for some teachers.

Generally, The English High School has effective leadership and sound management to effectively implement its school improvement plan. The Headmaster communicates effectively and has set high expectations for all staff to focus on improved student results. Leadership recognizes that work still remains in developing a climate where all teachers are committed to the school's improvement efforts.

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

The panel gathered some evidence that a segment of the school staff is strongly committed to the planned improvement efforts, but there is a concern that many staff members are not. While the Instructional Leadership Team is supportive of change, it is not clear that there is sufficient schoolwide support for planned improvement efforts to succeed. Referring to a fairly recent change in school leadership, some teachers interviewed expressed their frustration that too much change has taken place too quickly and that they resent the fact that the district made a leadership decision with limited input from the staff. Some teachers do not see the likelihood of improvement as a result of these leadership changes.

Although most staff agree with the identified needs of the school, there is a lack of agreement regarding the strategies being implemented for improvement. Evidence from classroom observations, teacher interviews, and the staff survey suggest that the faculty at English High School is to some degree attempting to implement the school's improvement initiatives. Writing Across the Curriculum was evident in some math classes, and the use of the district initiated Math Connections curriculum was also in evidence, although some math teachers interviewed expressed strong skepticism about the effectiveness of this new series to improve math scores. Teachers interviewed were well aware of the literacy focus, and some teachers appeared to be assigning extensive writing exercises in their classes. Teachers consistently reported in the staff survey that writing and literacy were being integrated into their classes, and many made mention of attending Writer's Workshop training.

In general, evidence indicates that some faculty support the school's planned improvement efforts, but a segment of the staff is not committed or supportive of the school's efforts. It was not possible within the scope of the panel review to fully investigate the balance between supportive and unsupportive faculty groups.

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

The English High School is receiving reasonable support and guidance from district leadership, but there is a concern regarding the level of district support and guidance over the long term. While the district presently provides human resources, review of school improvement plans, and financial resources to assist the school in the process of Whole School Change, improvement efforts will need sustainable guidance and support to be successful.

The Superintendent specifically recruited the new Headmaster to English High School with the directive to bring about change for improved student performance. The Superintendent personally evaluates the Headmaster rather than assigning the standard Deputy Superintendent as evaluator. A Chief Academic Officer was assigned to the school to help support the new learning expectations. The Deputy Superintendent, who is new to English High School as of the 2001-2002 academic year, supports the school improvement planning process by reviewing plans, providing feedback, and approving funding for initiatives outlined in the school's plan. Targeted funds for coaching are also allocated to schools. Central office teams conduct walkthroughs at the school and meet with the principal to provide feedback about areas of possible school improvement. The Instructional Leadership Team and cluster leaders work directly with the Deputy Superintendent on the planning, review, feedback, and implementation of the school plan. The district also provides staff development for principals focused on school improvement planning.

Additionally, district-wide professional development offerings and funds are in place to support the school's instructional initiatives. For example, all grade nine and ten math teachers are given monthly professional development in support of the Math Connections program. The district also provided funds for after school professional development in the literacy initiatives for both English Language Arts and content teachers.

There are some concerns that the district's level of support for English High School is not adequate or sustainable. For example, the district has not been able to provide all of the necessary supports requested by the school. The school was given the charge to implement Small Learning Communities, but the district did not support the additional FTEs needed to implement the SLCs fully. The Headmaster also explained the lack of flexibility he has over budgetary issues to meet the needs of English High School students. The district dictates how a majority of the school's budget is used. Leadership at the school also expressed a concern that the district will not be able to provide future requested supports, and the district may withdraw some established supports. Diminished funding in future budgets will raise serious concerns for the school because it is in the beginning stages of whole school change.

In summary, The English High School is receiving reasonable support and guidance from district leadership. The school is supported with human and financial resources, and professional guidance in some areas. There is a concern that the district's understanding of the school's needs is not contextualized and the sustainability of district support in the near future is in question.

Conclusion

The English High School has a reasonably sound plan for improving student performance. While the school's multiple planning documents are not cohesively linked into a single plan that outlines the school's priority efforts, many elements of a sound school improvement plan are present in the multiple documents reviewed, including the Whole School Improvement Plan, Smart Goals, Self-Assessment Report, and the Bain Organizational Review.

Although there are some concerns about staff buy-in and sustaining the level of support necessary to make significant improvements, the conditions for successfully implementing the improvement initiatives at English High School generally appear to be in place. The district provides guidance and support, and the school leaders and a select group of staff are making progress toward the implementation of the school's improvement plan. Ongoing district support and continued efforts to involve more staff are vital for the school improvement plan to have a positive impact on student learning.

Appendix A
Team Members

Denise Delorey, ESE Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA
Anthony Pope, Team Chairperson, SchoolWorks Consultant, Beverly, MA
Karen Laba, Team Member, Project Manager, SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA
Nick Feldman, Team Member, SchoolWorks Consultant, Beverly, MA
Walter McClennan, Team Member, Assistant Superintendent, Framingham, MA
Robert Boule, Team Member, Quadrant Manager, Worcester, MA
Kathy O'Connor-Abrams, Team Member, High School Assistant Principal, Chelsea, MA
Carolyn Richards, Team Member, Title I Testing Coordinator, Lowell, MA

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