Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

Report of Fact Finding Review
Academy Middle School
Fitchburg Public Schools

Executive Summary

The Fact Finding Review Team at Academy Middle School determined that the school has accurately identified the specific areas of student learning deficiencies in English Language Arts and mathematics. The Team recommended to the School Leadership Team further analysis of available data on basic reading skills prior to finalizing the School Improvement Plan.

Specific areas of learning deficiencies in mathematics are: number sense and operations, geometry, graphing and data analysis. Specific areas of deficiency in English Language Arts are identifying and understanding main idea and vocabulary. The deficiencies in English Language Arts are linked to poor performance in mathematics, particularly as language skills are required in responding accurately to short answer and constructed response questions in the mathematics assessment.

In examining the programs and practices across all areas of inquiry at Academy, the team determined that factors influencing student performance can be classified into five (5) areas:

1. School Climate: Overall school climate is positive. School suspensions as a percentage of the enrolled students have decreased by 50% through the end of October, compared to the same period last year. Office referrals have decreased by 41% through the end of October, compared to the same period last year. Student attendance has increased slightly during this same period. School leaders and staff are committed to addressing the needs of the students.

2. Curriculum: There is no district -approved English Language Arts curriculum in use at Academy. Teachers do have copies of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, but there is no consistency in the teaching of these learning standards. The school has adopted the Connected Mathematics Program, but they are only in the beginning stages of creating a document for teachers that shows the program's alignment with the current State learning standards.

3. Instructional Practice: Instructional practice is largely conducted via teacher presentation and student completion of worksheets. Overall instruction in the classroom lacks rigor. Data is not used systematically to drive instruction.

4. Professional Development: The school does not have sufficient professional development time available to address the issues related to curriculum development and changing instructional practices.

5. Policies: The current district policy on promotion allows students to matriculate to the next highest grade even though the students may be reading several years below grade level and have failed multiple subjects.

The Team's findings are described below:

1. Overall the school climate is positive. In general teachers are receptive to the changes that are needed to address student learning weaknesses.

   • Based on several days of observations, the Fact Finding Team found the school to be orderly.
   • The Fact Finding Team was informed, in interviews and focus groups with district and school staff, that there was a desire to improve student achievement.
   • Discipline has improved in the building this year. School suspensions as a percentage of the enrolled students have decreased by 50% through the end of October, compared to the same period last year. Office referrals have decreased by 41% through the end of October, compared to the same period last year.
   • Student attendance has increased slightly year to date.
   
   
   

2. There is no current ELA curriculum that is aligned with the State learning standards. The school staff does not have a curriculum document that reflects the alignment of the school's math program with the current State learning standards.

   • The absence of an English Language Arts curriculum to guide teachers in instructing students with prerequisite skills greatly increases the challenge for teachers. Sixty-one percent of students entering grade 7 are reading below grade level and 59% of the students entering grade 8 are reading below grade level.
   • The end of quarter grades in November 2002 shows that 44% of the students in grades 7/8 had failed at least one course offering in the area of mathematics or English Language Arts.
   • Instruction varies in quality, in many cases contributing to limited levels of challenge for students of all ability levels.
   • There is an uneven distribution of students between sections that is caused by scheduling in the school. This results in a variation in the number of students a teacher may be assigned to work with in any one class.
   • Supervision of instructional quality is uneven, with both experienced and new teachers not receiving regular feedback on classroom practice.
   • There is no staff handbook at the school to provide guidance on curriculum policies and related instructional practices.
   • As presented during the Fact Finding visit November 18-21 the Academy's School Improvement Plan was not complete. The School Improvement Plan does not address the development of the ELA curriculum, instructional practices, root causes of student reading issues, or the school's daily schedule in order to increase common planning time, nor does it address the district promotion policy. The School Leadership Team believed that the latter issue was not within the scope of the planning process.
   
   
   

3. Assessment data is not used to drive instruction at the school.

   • A review of test data provided by the school's data manager from the sending school shows incomplete data on scores of students. The school generated data at the beginning of the school year is limited to a diagnostic reading inventory for students in the lowest stanines on the Stanford.
   • Individual classroom teachers and grade level planning teams did not report using student performance data to determine appropriate sequencing of instruction, including remediation of deficiencies in prerequisite skills.
   
   
   

4. The possibilities of the school's success are limited by: the district's lack of overall plan to address the issue of many students entering the school lacking prerequisite skills, the district's failure to provide sufficient professional and curriculum time, and the lack of necessary resources to implement the proposed School Improvement Plan.

   • The district does not yet have a plan in place to address the issue of academic deficiencies of students in grades below those served by Academy Middle School.
   • The promotion policy as written contains no quantitative criteria for promotion. Thus students who are reading substantially below grade level and failing multiple subjects may be promoted to the next grade level. The School Improvement Plan as written does not address this issue.
   • The length of the school day and year allow six professional development days a year. Four of these are available for school use. The proposed School Improvement Plan calls for ongoing curriculum and professional development by the staff from December 2002 - September 2003. The time required for professional development is not available to the school.
   • The School Improvement Plan calls for new materials. The school's budget for materials was reduced 20% this year due to district - wide budget reductions. The School Improvement Plan calls for unspecified grants and other resources that are not yet available. The plan is silent on whether there has been a district commitment to fund the needed resources.
   • There is no apparent link between the individual teacher professional development, school wide needs as indicated by the test data and the district program. There is no formal school or district professional development plan.
   • The school day and year allow for six professional development days a year. Four of these are available for school use. There are only 60 minutes of common planning time available in each six day cycle. This time is available in 30 minute blocks. The time in the school day and year is not sufficient to implement the School Improvement Plan proposed by the school in November 2002.
   • The Fact Finding Team found that the School Improvement Plan as written was not feasible as the time called for curriculum and professional development was not available.
   
   
   

Next >