Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

School Panel Review Report
Henry Lord Middle School
Fall River 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 Henry Lord Middle School met this criterion at the eighth grade and was one of five middle schools selected for panel review in spring, 2002. The panel review was conducted on March 21-22, 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 Henry Lord 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.

Henry Lord Middle School Profile

The Henry Lord Middle School is one of four middle schools in Fall River enrolling students in a Grade 6 to 8 configuration. In 2001, the school identified 81% of its 793 students as White, 8% as Hispanic, 4% as African American, and 5% as Asian. Almost one-half (48%) of the student body is eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and approximately one-third of the students (29%) spoke a first language other than English. The school has a School-Wide Title I program and reported that approximately 18% of its student body receives special education services.

In 2000 (the most recent attendance data available to the panel), the school's daily attendance rate was 91.5 % with students missing an average of 15-16 days per school year. The rates of students who have missed 11-20 days (26%) and students who have missed more than 20 days of school (24%) are slightly higher than the district average.

The retention rate at the Henry Lord School was 4.1 % in 2000, with 23 7th graders and 10 8th graders being retained. This represents an increase from 1998 when 10 students overall were retained. Suspension rates have also been rising since 1998. The out-of-school suspension rate at the Lord was 21.8 % compared to a district rate of 12% in 2000. The number of Henry Lord students receiving out-of-school suspensions rose from 61 students in 1998 to 176 students in 2000. The in-school-suspension rate saw an increase of approximately 6% from 22.8 % in 1998 to 28.7 % in 2000, a rate that is almost double the district rate. There have been no student exclusions over the last three years.

Staffing

Henry Lord's students are taught by 61 full-time teachers as well as 14 teacher aides. The school administration consists of the principal and two assistant principals. The central staff also includes four guidance counselors. The school reported that all of its full-time teachers, except four, were certified to teach in their current positions. Approximately one-fourth of the faculty members (15) hold master's degrees and over one-third (22) have been teaching for over fifteen years at this school.

MCAS Results

The Henry Lord's overall performance Category for Cycle I was "Very Low," and the school failed to meet its improvement expectations for 1998-2000. Overall Grade 8 MCAS results revealed an increase of one point in the average scaled score of 217 in 1998 to a score of 218 for the 1999-2000 average.

Grade 8 MCAS results in English/Language Arts fluctuated from 1998-2001. The 2001 results saw an increase in the number of eighth graders in the Warning performance level to 30% from the 1998 baseline of 25%. Students scoring in the Proficient/Advanced levels increased from 21% to 23%. In the grade 7 English Language Arts MCAS in 2001, 41% scored in the Warning level and 16% scored in Proficient/Advanced.

In Mathematics, student scores remained relatively stable from 1998-2001, with three-quarters of the student body (75%) in the Warning level and 2% scoring in Proficient/Advanced. The grade 6 results revealed 66% in the Warning level and 10% in Proficient/Advanced. The 2001 Failure/Warning rates in both ELA and Mathematics for MCAS tests in grades 6-8 were well above the district failure rates. Rates of participation for regular and special education grade 8 students at the Henry Lord have remained between 96% - 100% for the last four years.

Panel Reponses To The Key Questions

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

While the school has analyzed data, and there are numerous improvement initiatives with accompanying action plans, there is not a current, broadly supported school improvement plan with objectives, specific timelines, and identified responsible parties that are sufficiently specific, measurable and clear.

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 district and school have analyzed student achievement data. A district-based team consisting of the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction and curriculum directors initially reviewed the 8th grade MCAS results. Then these analyses were shared with teachers from the four middle schools at a district-based meeting. At the building level, the Henry Lord faculty and administration met for a half-day in November 2001 to review MCAS data. During that meeting, teachers in subject level teams conducted an item analysis to discover the "best" and "worst" test questions in terms of student performance. The analysis revealed that students had difficulty with open-ended response questions across subject areas. In math, students had problems with number sense, patterns, relations functions and probability. In science, the analysis showed that performance had declined in the physical sciences, life sciences, earth science, space sciences and technology. In history and social sciences, U.S. history, economics, and civics and government subtests saw declines in scores from 1999 to 2000. MCAS results, along with other assessments, are also reviewed during the subject-based monthly curriculum meetings throughout the school year.

In addition to MCAS results, subject area benchmark assessments are given three times per year. As part of the district curriculum alignment efforts, these benchmarks provide teachers with specific content area assessment results. Teachers are responsible for grading their student benchmark tests using a rubric developed in district level meetings. Curriculum directors in each subject area discuss results with teachers in monthly curriculum meetings. Despite the fact that the district benchmark assessments are only in their second year of implementation, the majority of teachers interviewed support this effort. In interviews, some teachers mentioned how the benchmark tests have helped them plan for instruction. In contrast, a minority indicated that the benchmarks are not aligned with the curriculum.

While the school has analyzed the MCAS and benchmark data, there has been little or no systematic analysis of the underlying root causes of poor student achievement. In interviews, teachers and parents shared theories and opinions that predominantly target "issues that were beyond their control" as opposed to instructional strategies and classroom practice. Low expectations regarding student achievement are notable among staff. Evidence from the teacher survey and interviews reveal "blame" as the predominant response for poor student performance. During teacher interviews, perceptions of the school's inability to help students achieve were characterized by numerous comments such as the following: "Students come from an under performing culture." "There is no way they can achieve." "Teaching is not the problem; learning is." "School is not a priority for these kids." "These kids have no skills."

There is no formal, comprehensive evaluation of the various improvement programs in the school and how they work together. However, there are some individual program evaluation activities in place. The curricular programs such as Connected Math (CMP) and the Prentice Hall Reading have built-in assessments. The principal reviewed the delivery of special education services within each of the grade levels, in relation to the district's emphasis on inclusion, in a program and services report provided for the panel review. Other programs and initiatives such as Writing to Explain, Persuasive Writing, Independent Reading, Title I and CLASS (Continuous Learning After School and Summer Program) have incomplete evaluation plans lacking timelines, responsible parties and progress indicators.

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 school improvement goals are too broad to be grounded in a careful analysis of the reasons for poor student performance. They are: (1) improve student learning; (b) improve facilities through building construction and maintenance; (3) increase parent and community involvement; (4) ensure continuous improvement of programs and staff performance. Within the school improvement goals are strategies, initiatives and action plans.

Literacy and math are the focus of the improvement efforts. But because the strategies, initiatives and action plans are broad, it is unclear how they are connected to the data analysis. For example, the school's summary of priority needs mentions that MCAS and benchmark data reveal student weakness on open-ended response questions; however, the school improvement plan does not explain how initiatives such as CMP, Curriculum Alignment, Benchmark Reading, Writing to Explain, Persuasive Writing and the New Literature Series address this specific weakness.

During interviews and in written documents, student discipline and security was noted as a serious school problem hindering student achievement. There is a mismatch of perceptions about discipline and security and quantitative data. For example, interviews revealed that teachers blame the administration for not doing enough with student discipline while the school data reveal that inhouse suspensions have been rising yearly. Data from the MCAS questionnaire reveal that 66% of the students feel either safe or very safe in schools. The eight students interviewed responded that they feel safe in school. During teacher interviews there was never a mention of the possible connection between classroom practice and discipline, nor are there specific objectives in the school improvement plan other than a request for a security guard to address this perceived problem.

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

No. While there are a number of strategies for improving student results, there is insufficient buy-in for any one strategy as well as low morale among staff that greatly inhibit the likelihood of success. The school improvement plan contains 14 separate action plans for improving student results. A number of these strategies are district-based including Benchmark Assessments, Writing to Explain, Persuasive Writing, Core Program for Science, Connected Math (CMP), and Prentice Hall Reading. The remaining strategies, such as hiring a female security guard and using student agenda books, are school-based.

When asked repeatedly which strategy or strategies could most likely improve student achievement, no one strategy or groups of strategies emerged as catalyzing the school improvement efforts. The Connected Math Program (CMP), the Benchmark Assessments, student agenda books and hiring a female security guard were the most frequently cited strategies among the school staff; however, vague strategies such as improving vocabulary, writing, using visuals and displaying the frameworks in classrooms were mentioned as well.

The school has adopted the Connected Math Program (CMP), a research-based program that has shown promising results in other schools but has yet to show results at the Henry Lord. CMP is being phased in at the school and requires substantial professional development. Interviews with the principal, the curriculum coordinators and the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction reveal that there is mixed buy-in for the CMP program. During the summer of 2001, only three teachers attended the district professional development offerings in CMP.

The Benchmark Assessments, discussed in a previous section, provide classroom teachers with ongoing student progress data. Three times a year, teachers administer and score these assessments in all core subject areas. Student results are reviewed during monthly curricular meetings. Although a few teachers indicated that the benchmark assessments were not aligned with the curriculum, the majority of teachers interviewed felt that the benchmark assessments had potential to improve classroom instruction.

The use of student agenda books is a school-wide strategy used to help students organize their assignments and keep parents informed of homework. The school improvement plan indicates that parents and teachers should be checking student agenda books. Only one teacher out of eight was observed referring to the agenda book. During interviews, no parents mentioned the use of the student agenda book as a school improvement strategy.

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

No. The school's written improvement planning document contains the standard elements of an improvement plan but lacks sufficient clarity and specificity to effectively guide implementation. First, the strategies connected to the goals are vague. For example, strategies linking to goal one, such as "ensure that content and methods of the curriculum frameworks are addressed in every classroom" and "ensure that teachers and administrators have the professional skills to educate all students to meet their full potential" lack detailed steps for implementation and evaluation. The 14 action plans are vague as well. The plan's timelines, progress indicators, responsible parties and evaluation steps, in general, are not sufficiently clear, measurable or specific in the opinion of the panel. Moreover, there is no evidence that improvement strategies have been prioritized.

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

No. According to the leadership report and interviews with school and district staff, the development of the school improvement plan reflected the work that had been taking place district wide. The Office of Instruction organized a series of workshops that provided templates of what the school plan should look like. The vision of the school was developed through a committee of school council members from the four middle schools. This work was returned to the Henry Lord's school site council for further discussion. In addition, a district consultant reviewed the plan. Interviews with school site council members indicated that some teachers were involved in an informal needs assessment, but there was no process to engage a critical mass of teachers in the initial development of the current plan. The principal indicated that there was opportunity for the faculty to review the plan in the spring; however, very few teachers contributed. Numerous sources shared the view that anticipation of the panel review sparked a desire for some teachers to read the plan for the first time. This observation was evident in the leadership report as well as interviews with staff and district personnel.

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

The conditions for successfully implementing the improvement initiatives do not appear to be in place. Tension between the administration and teaching staff, low morale among staff, and low student expectations result in poor support for current change efforts.

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

There is palpable tension between the faculty and the administration. Both sides indicate a lack of support for each other and an absence of shared school vision. Faculty comments about the school administration from the teacher survey and interviews include: lack of consistency in enforcing the discipline policy; limited or no support for improving classroom practice; lack of a common vision; lack of follow-through with school policies; inability to incorporate staff suggestions; and lack of respect for each other.

Among the administration itself, there appears to be a lack of common vision and purpose regarding the school's improvement efforts and the implementation of the discipline policy. Interviews with the principal, some teacher interviews and teacher comments in some focus groups indicate that the principal and vice principals have different views and leadership styles. In particular, there is not a shared view of how discipline should be implemented or sufficient agreement about how improvement efforts should be moved forward.

One new initiative has shown promise. A leadership team consisting of the principal and teacher leaders has been functioning since January 2002. Teachers in both focus groups indicated support for this new team, although site-based management efforts have been thwarted in the past. In anticipation for the panel review, the leadership team began to look at the Turning Points reform effort. According to teachers and administrators, the leadership team spearheaded the writing of a Comprehensive School Reform grant (CSRD) and has gained 87% staff buy-in for the project. This is the first time in recent history that staff has shown this kind of buy-in for any school improvement effort.

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

No. As stated previously, interviews with faculty suggest that many have not read the school improvement plan, have not had sufficient input into the plan, and do not support many of the key improvement initiatives. In the teacher survey, one quarter of the teacher respondents commented that they did not know what was in the plan. Among the faculty members who are familiar with the plan, there is some support for the district curriculum alignment efforts and benchmark assessments. Most recently, the faculty has shown some evidence of their ability to work together by supporting the CSRD grant written by the newly formed leadership team.

As discussed previously, very few faculty members contributed to the school improvement plan. Very few faculty members attended the professional development offerings for Connected Math. Some faculty members resist meeting more than once weekly for common planning time, despite the fact that the district has made provisions for parallel planning time. According to the principal, there is staff resistance toward professional conversations about school improvement efforts. However, during an interview he noted, "We are beginning to do things differently."

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

Interviews with the superintendent and assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction revealed a commitment to the Henry Lord's improvement efforts. The district is well informed of the strengths and weaknesses of the school improvement plan through its frequent meetings between the principal, the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction and the district's curriculum directors. Moreover, the district leadership views the principal as a dedicated educator who is knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction at the middle school level. The superintendent cites the principal as having a vision for school improvement and advancing student achievement. The curriculum directors cite the principal's involvement in curriculum meetings.

The district has supported the Henry Lord's improvement efforts through restructuring to facilitate common planning time, guiding the school improvement efforts through the development of a district plan, completing the district's curriculum alignment and benchmark testing, supporting instructional programs such as writing across the curriculum, CMP and a new literature series, and providing curriculum directors on a monthly basis to support school-based efforts.

The district leadership is significant and essential to the school improvement efforts. It could be further improved by following through in several areas. Despite the fact that the district has named program evaluation and teacher evaluation as priority areas, there does not appear to be a system in place for the district to assist schools in monitoring their progress or evaluating teachers.

Conclusion

While the school has analyzed data and there are numerous improvement initiatives with accompanying action plans, there is not a current, broadly supported school improvement plan with objectives, specific timelines, and identified responsible parties that are sufficiently specific, measurable and clear.

The conditions for successfully implementing the improvement initiatives do not appear to be in place. Tension between the administration and teaching staff, low morale among staff, and low student expectations result in poor support for current change efforts.

Appendix A
Team Members

Nancy Clair, Ed.D. Panel Chair, Consultant, Schoolworks, Beverly, MA.
Geri-Lyn Ajemian, Ed.D. Panel Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA
Diedre Haley, Administrative Intern, Lowell Public Schools, Lowell, MA.
Joan Grenier, Director of Instructional Services, Marlborough Public Schools, Marlborough, MA.
Dael Angelico-Hart, Ed.D. Principal Melrose Public Schools, Melrose, 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