Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

Report of the School Panel Review
Brightwood Elementary School
Springfield, MA

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 Brightwood Elementary School was identified for meeting this criterion at the fourth grade and was one of the twelve schools selected for panel reviews in spring 2002. The spring 2002 Panel Review of the Brightwood Elementary School was conducted on April 11-12, 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 Brightwood Elementary School 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 Brightwood Elementary 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.

Brightwood Elementary School Profile

The Brightwood School is one of 33 elementary schools in the Springfield Public School District. The school's PK-5 population in 2001 was 475 students, of whom 69% are Hispanic, 24% Black, 6% White and 1% Asian. Over the last four years, Hispanic enrollment has increased 13% while Black and White student enrollment has declined 9% and 5% respectively. Forty percent of Brightwood's students speak a first language other than English (FLNE), 34% are Limited English Proficient (LEP), and 91% are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, all of which are more than three times state-wide averages. Brightwood is a School-wide Title I school.

The Programs and Services report indicates that the school's 105 special education students are served through a combination of inclusion, pull-out and resource room services. Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) and English as a Second Language (ESL) services reach 145 students, or 31% of the population: K-3 students receive Dual-Language English/Spanish bilingual instruction. Fourth grade TBE students receive individual programs adjusted to their language competency; and all 5th grade students are taught through a sheltered English model in which instructional balance is determined by student proficiency level. Between 58 and 64 students receive academic support services through Reading Recovery, Early Intervention, small group and Academic Support Grant services. The school does not offer gifted and talented classes but does provide accelerated math instruction to students in grades 2-5 who are working above grade level.

English language proficiency is tested annually by two ESL teachers, one each for grades K-2 and 3-5. Both ESL teachers work with TBE students for 1/2 hour daily during the language arts block and twice weekly for 40 minutes during academic resource time classes. They also help plan and coordinate Dual-Language classroom instruction.

On average, Brightwood students missed 13 days per year in 2000 as compared to 19.8 in the district and 11 state-wide. Ninety-seven students, or 20%, missed more than 20 days per year. The student attendance rate, 92.7%, is slightly below the state average (93.8%) and above the district average (89%) for the 2000 school year.

In 2000, the school retained 11 1st grade and two 2nd grade students for an overall retention rate of 2.7 per 100 students. Retentions in 1999 were also limited to grade one (10) and grade two (6) for a rate of 3.3 In 1998, no students were retained. Brightwood's 3-year retention rate of 1.9 ranks it seventh lowest among 33 elementary schools in the district. Both in-school and out-of-school suspension rates fell dramatically in 2000 with only seven students suspended, a decrease from 72 in 1999 and 123 in 1998. Because of the high number of suspensions in prior years, Brightwood has the 4th highest 3-year suspension rate among elementary schools in the district (6.7 for in-school and 6.9 for out-of-school).

Staffing

The Brightwood Elementary School's staff includes the principal, an assistant principal, one guidance counselor, one librarian, one school psychologist, 51 full-time teachers and 14 teacher aides. Approximately 50% of full-time staff have advanced degrees, and 12 are certified in more than one area. Five teachers are on waiver, one for regular education, one for basic skills/remedial education, and one each for physical education, ESL and Special Education. Three teachers are not currently certified to teach in their subject areas, one in reading and two in bilingual education.

MCAS Results

The school's baseline (1998) score of 219.3 (2% Proficient/Advanced in ELA and 71% Warning in Mathematics) placed it in performance category 5 ("Very Low"). The category requires an overall improvement of 4-6 points in the 1999/2000 average scaled score, which the school failed to meet by scoring 219.5 points.

ELA Warning rates were at their lowest in the baseline year at 36%. In the following year, 1999, the Warning percentage increased sharply to 52% but then fell to 43% in 2000. In 2001, the Warning percentage reached its highest mark at 57%. In Mathematics, the 1998 MCAS test returned a Warning rate of 71%. Over the next two years the school showed some improvement as the Warning rate decreased to 69% and 61% respectively. In 2001, Warning percentage increased one point to 62%.

While Warning rates in ELA and Mathematics showed increases between 2000 and 2001, L.E.P. and special education students recorded much sharper rates of increase than did regular education students. In 2001, 100% of L.E.P. students tested (11) in ELA received Warning as did 92% (12 of 14 students) in Mathematics. However, in the previous year (2000), only 38% of students received Warning in ELA and 58% in Math. Scores for special education students follow the same trend with 55% Warning in ELA for 2000 followed by an increase to 89% in 2001. While increases in Math Warning for special education between 2000 and 2001 is presently in district (+8%) and state scores (+2%), the increase is at Brightwood was (+7%). The increase in L.E.P. warning between 2000 and 2001 in both ELA (+62%) and Mathematics (+34%) is unique to the school and is not found in district or state results.

Panel Responses To The Key Questions

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

The panel review team answered this question with a qualified 'No.' There was no doubt that the School Improvement Plan targets areas of identified weakness and that it provides broad achievement goals in the area of literacy, math, instructional practice, bilingual education, and behavior/school climate. However, critical weaknesses in the plan's lack of measurement indicators, oversight, benchmarks, timelines, detailed strategies, consideration of prior improvement efforts, and identification of responsible parties prevent it, in the team's judgment, from providing a sound foundation for the school's improvement initiatives.

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 plan incorporates student performance data into its objectives as current indications and desired improvement outcomes. The degree to which it has actually been used to guide improvement efforts is not clear. A section of the plan titled "Comprehensive Needs Assessment" captures the last four years of MCAS performance data. The available assessments include MCAS scores that show performance by student type (regular education, students with disabilities, and limited English proficient students) and by race (for 2001 only), city-wide math and reading assessment results, and school-based Developmental Reading Assessment (D.R.A.) and Qualitative Reading Inventory (Q.R.I.). It was not clear to the visiting panel how this information was used to target areas of instructional weakness or to identify gaps in student performance.

In general, the school improvement plan provides improvement goals and strategies without determining the specific reasons for poor student performance. In response to this question, the Principal indicated that because areas of student need are quite broad and a large percentage of students are performing below grade level, addressing school-wide teaching and learning issues rather than issues of any one population of students or content area is a more practicable approach to improvement planning at this time.

While the Brightwood improvement plan has not identified the source of gaps in student achievement, it is clear that the school understands and can articulate the problems it faces in improving instructional practice through professional development, maintaining uninterrupted math and literacy blocks, addressing student behavior needs and focusing efforts school-wide to improve student literacy. Literacy has been identified as a key area for improvement since 1998 when the school restructured its Federal Magnet Assistance Program around the theme of developmental literacy. The current principal was involved in the restructuring effort and explained that several literacy-based initiatives have been instituted since then, including: reorganizing the schedule to allow for an uninterrupted two-hour block for English / language arts and one-hour block for math instruction; the development of early intervention strategies, the racking of student performance through the use of Profile and Prescription folders, Reading Recovery and First Steps Writing; and school-wide implementation of the Balanced Literacy model. Despite the strength of these initiatives and evidence of their classroom implementation, the visiting panel remains concerned about the likelihood of student improvement in English / language arts as the school's 2001 warning in ELA (57%) was the highest since the 1998 baseline year (36%). One promising development in this area is the Literacy Coordinator / Reading Resource Teacher's appointment of a 12-member Literacy Leadership Team in April 2001 (please see key question 2B). This team was established concurrent to the expiration of the school's Federal Magnet Grant funding and appears well positioned to provide school-based leadership, professional development and mentoring to sustain the literacy initiative.

A critical area of need was discovered in the Dual-Language Bilingual Program initiative. This program, introduced to grades K-1 in 1999-2000 and grades 2-3 in 2000-2001, requires a gradual immersion into the second language while continuing to develop literacy in the first language. Teachers and school leaders report that efforts to maintain first language proficiency leave students unprepared to perform well on the 4th grade MCAS test. School leadership is aware of the inherent difficulties in implementing the Dual-Language model at the Brightwood School, yet the improvement plan lacks the strategies and vision to address these issues. For instance, goal 4 of the S.I.P. "To plan and implement a comprehensive Dual-Language Bilingual Program," requires implementation in grades 4-5 for the current year. However, in the School Leadership Report, the Principal states, "To remain true to the [Dual-Language] model and its research-based rationale, these students should continue to focus on literacy development in Spanish. However, to do so will leave them totally unprepared for MCAS testing in English, which they must participate in as third graders. So the dual-language model, despite its track record in supporting long-term educational success, cannot be implemented successfully under current conditions."

B. Does the plan set out specific improvement objectives that are grounded in the school's analysis of the reasons for poor student performance?

Teacher interviews, focus groups and classroom observations reveal that the school is broadly focused on improving teaching and learning through its use of Balanced Literacy, First Steps Writing, and Responsive Classroom techniques. The school's ability to implement Responsive Classroom school-wide is uncertain due to budget constraints; however, the Principal has submitted an application for the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (C.S.R.D.) grant as an alternate funding source. The visiting panel did confirm sufficient familiarity and use of Responsive Classroom techniques among faculty to provide evidence of this program's ongoing implementation. What is expected of students and what constitutes "good" work is verbally and visually communicated in classrooms and on prominent display throughout the school. In classroom observations, panelists also observed effective classroom management techniques and a clear focus on literacy in both bilingual and regular education instruction. Teachers indicated in interviews and focus groups that, in general, new students are coming into their classes with improved reading skills. Parents also articulate their support for this program and recognize the positive impact it has had on both the school culture and their own children.

Panelists found that the efforts of school leadership and teachers to improve student performance in reading/language arts and to improve school climate and student behavior are broadly tied to goals stated in the School Improvement Plan. In the area of bilingual education and mathematics, however, efforts to improve student performance were less clearly linked to S.I.P. goals. Despite district-wide math assessments, there was no evidence that the school is targeting specific weaknesses in math by disaggregating data or by conducting question strand analysis of areas of poor student performance. The Plan indicates that the school is in its first year of implementing MathLand and its second year of implementing Addison-Wesley as its core instructional program in math, but the panel was not able to verify, in classroom observations and teacher focus groups, that these initiatives are resulting in changed instructional practices or are being used to address specific weaknesses in student performance on a school-wide basis.

Because the School Improvement Plan lacks specificity in the area of benchmarks, timelines, implementation, responsible parties and oversight, the panel was not able to judge whether improvement targets are reasonable and achievable. While the Plan's overall goals are specific and measurable, individual objectives needed to meet stated goals are general and lack specific strategies and measurement indicators. The Superintendent explained that the district is currently developing an improved process and template for the S.I.P and acknowledged that the current version lacks key information required to define a sound plan. For example, Goal 1 requires the school to "improve the performance of Brightwood students in the area of reading and language arts" and measures success by requiring, among other indicators, that "50% of all students will perform at grade level on annual standardized tests." However, many of the 19 "Action Plans" (what the panel interpreted as strategies) required to reach this goal, such as "Implement Guided Reading groups at all grade levels using text matched to the instructional level of students," provide no detail on how this item is to be carried out or how success is to be measured.

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

In attempting to accomplish improvement objectives in literacy, math and school culture/student behavior, the Plan does specify sound, research-based strategies that target identified weaknesses and appear likely to lead to improved student performance. In the area of bilingual education, as noted above, strategies appear less likely to lead to improvement. To address low student performance in reading and writing, the school restructured its Magnet School Program in 1998 around the theme of developmental literacy. To carry out this initiative, the plan calls for professional development in Balanced Literacy, First Steps Writing, and Guided Reading groups.

In the area of math, the school's improvement efforts include the selection, also in 1998, of Addison-Wesley as its core instructional math program and will implement MathLand in grades K-1 in 2001-2002. To address school climate and student behavior issues, the school is piloting (and showing improved results from) the "Responsive Classroom," a social skills program developed by the Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC). The plan requires that at least 10 teachers implement Responsive Classroom techniques in 2001-2002. While positive results of this program were evident during the school visit, the school's ability to implement this initiative school-wide is dependent on district funding and the school's pending application to participate in NEFC's Responsive Leadership Forum. Overall efforts to improve instructional practice are present and focus on helping both faculty define and students practice "good work" through the use of rubrics, exemplars and criteria charts. Staff is also being introduced to Principles of Learning such as Clear Expectations, Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum, and Accountable Talk, as well as standards-based planning models to assist students in evaluating their work and in setting selfimprovement goals.

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

Although planned improvement initiatives do target identified weaknesses in student performance, the panel found that the School Improvement Plan document is not specific enough to successfully guide the implementation of its initiatives. While objectives and action items have been identified and are clearly linked to improvement goals, the plan does not specify strategies needed to guide implementation of the improvement initiatives. The absence of timelines for implementation, a list of human, material, and financial resources required, and responsible parties to implement and oversee improvement all prevented the panel from being able to clearly identify the path of strategic change.

Through interviews with the Principal and Superintendent, the panel learned that the template for school improvement (supplied by the district) is in the process of being revised for clarity and specificity. Both school and district leaders acknowledged that the current school improvement template lacks the necessary benchmarks, timelines, strategies, responsible parties, and oversight mechanisms required to implement, monitor and evaluate the improvement process. The School Improvement Plan and Leadership Report do contain statements of problem areas to be addressed but lack an analysis of causal factors, the use of assessment tools and progress indicators, and in general do not provide faculty with sufficiently detailed action plans to guide and insure implementation.

While the Brightwood School Improvement Plan lacks the above-mentioned benchmarks and key methods of evaluation, the panel found, in interviews with the Principal and Literacy Resource Team, that both formal and informal processes are being used to monitor student performance in reading and math. The Literacy Resource Team has received district training in DRA and QRI reading assessments and uses them to keep running records for grades K-2. The Literacy Resource Coordinator has partially implemented Profile and Prescription folders in other grades to track atrisk students and to coordinate intervention strategies. The panel also learned that assessments in math are conducted by the district three times each year (Fall, Winter, Spring) for grades 2-5 and at the end of each term by the school using Addison-Wesley assessment tools. The Principal noted that leadership and faculty use these assessments to assign special resources for individual students.

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

In discussions with the Superintendent, Principal and the School Centered Decision Making Team (SCDM), the panel learned that, prior to this year, there was no formal process in place that insured that district and building staff participated in improvement planning efforts. Currently, the Principal solicits suggestions from the staff and the SCDM team regarding school-wide goals and action items. The Principal then drafts the plan and submits it to faculty and SCDM team for final revision and approval before submitting the plan to the superintendent. The Principal stated in the Leadership Report and in interviews that input from the district, faculty and SCDM has been minimal but that the Literacy Leadership Team, faculty training in Responsive Classroom techniques and a redesigned template all promise broader participation by faculty in the planning process.

In addition to the limited input the Principal received in developing the current plan, the school does not appear to have considered previous improvement plans and their effectiveness in the current effort. The recent change in district leadership contributed to this lack of retrospect, as the Principal did not fully develop and was not required to submit an S.I.P. for the 2000-2001 school year. The panel made note of the number of improvement goals and strategies that were brought forward from the 1999-2000 plan without substantive assessment and revision. It was unclear to the visiting team, for example, whether any of the prior years' improvement efforts were met in the 2001-2002 plan or if progress is being made toward ongoing improvement efforts. The Principal noted that three years ago he did an item-by-item analysis of the school's progress by linking assessment data to improvement actions but stated that this practice has not been carried forward. Interviews with the SCDM team and the Principal indicate that there is no formal process in place for the regular assessment and review of progress toward improvement goals. However, interviews with the SCDM team as well as parents indicate that they have opportunities to discuss and provide input into both the development of the S.I.P. goals and its implementation.

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

Because of noted weaknesses in the S.I.P. and differences in degree of implementation of improvement initiatives, the panel was unable to determine if conditions are in place for the successful implementation of all the school's improvement plans. In general, the visiting panel found evidence that improvement initiatives in literacy, student behavior and school climate are in a more advanced stage of implementation than those in math and bilingual education.

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

The Brightwood School's Principal is a committed, articulate leader who has the strong support of his staff. His dedication in providing what is best for students and in supporting faculty was confirmed by staff and observed throughout the panel's two-day visit. He is an effective communicator who fully comprehends the complexity of the issues facing the school and who is also able to convey, in a straightforward and honest way, a clear understanding of the school's strengths and weaknesses in its attempts to reach its goals. As a leader, he also fosters a positive school climate and shows great pride in the students and faculty surrounding him. During the panel's lunch break, the Principal arranged to have the School Chorus of approximately 20 students perform a suite of songs that communicate the positive self-image of Brightwood students and school community as a whole. The overwhelming majority of staff surveyed and interviewed in teacher focus groups expressed confidence in the Principal's ability to guide the school forward in achieving its improvement goals. The Principal is a leader who believes that trust, hard work, the support of a close-knit community and perseverance are all germane to the improvement process.

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

There is no question that the faculty strongly supports the Principal and the improvement initiatives in literacy and behavior management. Teachers talked enthusiastically in focus groups and individual interviews about the gains they have seen in their students as a result of these initiatives and that are supported by school and district assessments. Faculty also commended the Principal for his energy and commitment in modeling and communicating confidence in staff's professional abilities. The most frequent comment heard by the visiting panel regarding improvement planning efforts is that more time is needed to elevate MCAS scores. Thus the staff communicated strong support for literacy and behavior initiatives and expressed confidence that gains will be rewarded by perseverance.

The school has established a sound and promising initiative to improve student performance in English / language arts through the school's Literacy Resource Coordinator. In this position, which is 1/2 funded by a literacy resource grant and 1/2 funded by the district, the Coordinator assembled a team of teacher-leaders who provide guidance, professional development and support for schoolwide literacy efforts. Under the Coordinator's guidance, the Literacy Leadership Team offers training and support in Balanced Literacy, First Steps Writing, guided reading groups and the use of standards-based rubrics for instruction and DRA assessments for grades K-2. During the team's visit, the Coordinator substantiated improvements in writing between fall and spring city-wide writing assessments in grades 3-5. The Coordinator also supplied documents that show impressive results form the school's Early Intervention K-1 assessment screening that is administered to incoming first graders each fall. The average gain from fall to spring in literacy scores for the 27 students enrolled in 2000-2001 was 75%.

Improvements in school culture are evident and well-supported by staff training in Responsive Classroom techniques. Teacher interviews, focus groups and the staff survey all reveal that the Brightwood staff well understands its role in implementing Responsive Classroom, Balanced Literacy and open-response writing initiatives. Evidence also exists throughout the school and in classrooms that the above initiatives are being implemented. Walls and hallways provide copious displays of student work, posters and other prompts that promote high achievement, high expectations and positive school spirit. All panelists observed the use of Responsive Classroom techniques across all grade levels and content areas.

Parents echoed positive sentiments expressed by faculty regarding school culture and student improvements in literacy. Parents noted that children's homework assignments encourage parental involvement and that they receive letters, in both English and Spanish, regarding school activities. The sense emerged that there is an easy, ongoing dialogue between parents and faculty at the school and that teachers and leadership foster a close, caring community. Although the school's open door policy makes parents feel welcome and encourages them to become involved in their children's education, parent involvement remains weak.

In focus groups, students spoke enthusiastically about the school, said they feel safe in school and that teachers care about them and are available for extra help whenever they need it. This same energy for learning was observed in classrooms where students were engaged in classroom activities, thoughtfully answered questions, remained on-task during classroom activities, and were wellbehaved and responsive to the teacher. Some panelists reported the use of differentiated instruction techniques in observations.

There was some lessening of optimism expressed by faculty and parents surrounding the school's efforts to guide bilingual education and math improvement initiatives. Some teachers commented that professional development in math, as well as support from the math resource teacher, is not as well established as the available resources in literacy. Teachers also noted that the library lacks needed resources in Spanish-language materials in light of the school's high Hispanic student population. Some criticism from teachers was also present in focus groups and the staff survey concerning the school's dual-language bilingual program. A number of teachers noted that there is a lack of integration and insufficient transitional supports for ESL students moving into English-only classrooms. Several factors contribute to the staff's uneven support of bilingual education initiatives, including: the school's inability to align K-2 and grade 3-5 approaches to bilingual education; the uncertainty surrounding funding of a vacant bilingual education teaching position; and a lack of professional development for regular education staff in teaching bilingual students. Some teachers and parents expressed criticism that the school has not identified a single bilingual education model, has not identified a core set of goals and has not provided human resources needed to help L.E.P. and E.L.L. students meet learning expectations. Parents in focus groups also stated that math doesn't receive as much attention as reading. This latter point may be due to the fact that initiatives such as MathLand, the recently selected Addison-Wesley text and the integration of Principles of Learning with Addison-Wesley are all in the early stages of implementation.

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

Prior to the arrival of a new superintendent in Springfield this year, the school was not receiving adequate guidance from the district leadership. The Principal indicated in interviews and in the Leadership Report that there was no formal process in place for the district to receive or review the S.I.P. The Principal also notes in the Leadership Report that district support in the area of special education, bilingual education and academic directors has been consistently weak in the past but notes that the new S.I.P. framework and leadership may allow for more support than has been available.

The panel believes, as a result of its interview with the Superintendent, that he is sensitive to the needs of the school and is addressing those needs. District guidance and assistance is being developed in the form of an improved S.I.P. planning process; a newly designed S.I.P. template that is driven by data analysis and aligned to the District Learning Plan; and greater district oversight that requires more site visits and links the principal's performance evaluation to the school's achievement of improvement goals. Overall, these initiatives are intended to provide more coordinated and prescriptive planning and oversight methods than have existed in the past to assist school leadership in developing and implementing the S.I.P.

In his interview with the visiting panel, the Superintendent indicated that he is aware of the difficulties surrounding bilingual education at Brightwood. There was a general cognizance that the school is having difficulties in this area and that the district needs to provide additional supports in the form of guidance, including financial and human resources. District-based bilingual education support services include an existing Title VII grant that funds a district Curriculum Director for Bilingual Education and a Spanish Bilingual teacher. The district has also applied for a Noyce Foundation grant (in partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) and pledged to support the Brightwood School to study how English language learners acquire proficiency in math and science. Despite the above resources, the Principal reports that the bilingual teaching position has remained unfilled all year and that the school has received "little guidance from the bilingual office" (Leadership Report, question 9).

The Superintendent also indicated that the Brightwood School is targeted to receive assistance from a recently awarded Wallace/Reader's Digest Grant. This $5 million award will be used to strengthen connections between leadership and learning in targeted schools. It will also provide the district with resources to help principals improve their leadership skills and develop an understanding of leadership competencies among staff to strengthen the connection between leadership and learning, to help teachers develop leadership skills, problem solving strategies through teamwork, and become more involved in developing and implementing school improvement plans.

Conclusion

The review team carefully considered the School Improvement Plan's strengths against its weaknesses and was ultimately unable to offer a definitive 'yes' or 'no' response to either of the two key questions. As panelists gathered evidence and deliberated in attempting to judge Plan's merits and considered the likelihood of its successful implementation, it became clear that the Plan lacked necessary elements to be considered, in the team's judgment, a "sound plan for improving student performance." Thus while some of the school's improvement initiatives showed positive results and appeared to be undergoing successful implementation (literacy, behavior management), other areas (bilingual education, math) appeared to lack either sufficient resources, development, faculty /parent support, and/or evidence of sound vision. The two-day site visit also revealed strengths in the area of school leadership, school climate, and faculty support of some but not all improvement initiatives.

Appendix A
Team Members

Dr. Scott Kelley, Chairperson, Wessex Associates International
Lynda Foisy, Panel Coordinator, MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Janice Johnson, Quadrant Manager, Worcester Public Schools, Worcester, MA
Erin Furey, Administrative Apprentice, Lowell Public Schools, Lowell, MA
Daniel Dobbins, Teacher, Cyril K. Brennan Middle School, Attleboro Public Schools, Attleboro, 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