Archived Information

Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

Panel Report
Compass School Candidate Review
Somerset High School-Somerset Public Schools

Introduction

The Program

The Exemplary Schools Program is one part of the Massachusetts School and District Accountability System. The purpose of the Exemplary Schools Program is to recognize and celebrate improvement in Massachusetts' schools, and to disseminate information and encourage networking and sharing of ideas, effective practices, and models for success. The program is intended to provide a means for the schools to share their expertise with other schools in the state.

Based on the School Performance and Improvement Ratings issued in January 2001, and continued and/or significant improvement on the 2001 MCAS test results, the Department identified 175 schools that exceeded their expectations for improvement. These schools were invited to apply for consideration as candidates to serve as 2002 Commonwealth Compass Schools. Of the 84 schools who chose to apply by submitting information on the initiatives they have undertaken to improve student performance that they think have had the most positive impact on their results, seven high schools, eight elementary schools, and three middle schools were selected as finalists and scheduled for an on-site review to determine their willingness and capacity to serve. Data and information gathered from the applications and the review process of these schools will be published in a report this fall.

Schools selected to serve as 2002 Commonwealth Compass Schools will receive special recognition and a $10,000 grant to support the participation of their administrators and staff in information sharing and dissemination activities over the next year.

The Report

This report summarizes the findings and analyses of the visiting team based on their April 29, 2002 site visit review of the Somerset High School. The report will assist the Commissioner in determining which schools from among those visited will be designated to serve as Compass Schools in the state's new Exemplary Schools Program.

The review panel evaluated data and written information on the school's performance and improvement efforts, including the school's application to serve as a Compass School. The panel then visited the school to meet with school leaders, staff, parents and students and visit classrooms in order to answer the following two key questions:

1. Is this school using effective improvement initiatives that could be replicated in other similarly profiled schools?
2. Are the conditions in place for this school to serve as a model of effective practices and successful improvement initiatives?

The panel's responses to these two questions frame the report. In the process of answering these questions, the report focuses primarily on the initiatives that the school identified in its application as having had the most positive impact on student performance.

The findings and conclusions presented here are the product of analysis, discussion, and observation, and are based on the evidence made available to the panel before and during their visit. A list of panel members who participated in the Somerset High School review is provided in Appendix A. A detailed schedule of the panel's activities is provided in Appendix B.

School Profile

Somerset High School is one of six public schools in Somerset and the only school serving grades 9-12. In 2001, the school enrolled 1001 students, of which 100% are White. The School Profile identifies 5% as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), 4% who speak a first language other than English (FLNE), and 8% as special education students. The attendance rate over the last four years has varied .5% or less and was 91.3% in 2000, which is 2.5% below the state average. The average number of days absent over the four years reported (1997-2000) has remained between 15.5 and 15.8 days per year and is higher than the state average (11.2 days per year).

Somerset High School's overall retention rate has been close to half the state average (2.1%-2.5%) for every year except 2000 when 2.7%, or 26 students, were retained. That year, 25 of the 26 were 9th grade students for a grade-level rate of 8.3%, a figure that is only slightly higher than the state average for grade 9 (8.1%). The school reported higher rates of in-school and out-of-school suspension than other schools in the state (as averaged ) for all years between 1998-2000. In 2000, the school suspended 415 students, 109 out-of-school and 306 in-school, resulting in suspension rates of 11.3 and 31.6 respectively. Grade-level out-of-school suspension rates are near state averages for all years reported, but in-school suspension rates exceed state averages in 2000 (by grade) by a margin more than two to one (grades 9, 10, 11) and three to one (grade 12).

Special education services are made available to 83 students and consist of inclusion, resource room instruction and an integrated program that provides academic instruction, counseling, and study skills assistance.

Academic support and extended time resources are comprehensive and are strongly supported by students at Somerset High School. For the year reported (2001), 588 students (59%) took advantage of academic support services including content-area, MCAS and SAT workshops, a reading clinic, and informational sessions on instructional strategies. Twenty extended time (enrichment/recreational) programs are listed on the Programs and Services report and show wide participation by 1328 students across all grades (this number is greater than enrollment due to cross-registration).

Staffing

The staff of Somerset High School includes the Principal, two assistant principals, three school-wide guidance counselors, one librarian, one long-term substitute, three school-wide psychologists, 81 teachers, four teacher aides and 17 teacher leaders/curriculum facilitators. Three teachers are on waiver, two in general science and one in English Language Arts. Approximately 40% of full-time teaching staff have advanced degrees, and 58% have been teaching for over 20 years. Thirty-five teachers (43%) have served for 20 or more years at the school. The student-teacher ratio is 12.4 to 1.

MCAS Results

Somerset High School's baseline (1998) score placed it in performance category 5 ("Very Low"), requiring an improvement expectation of 4-6 points at the end of cycle one. The school exceeded its overall improvement expectation by scoring 6.2 points above its baseline. Improvement was accomplished through gains in math and science/technology that exceeded expectations. Improvement in ELA "Approached" the expectation but nonetheless showed a 2 point improvement over the baseline score.

The percentage of students scoring in Proficient & Advanced in ELA has shown steady increase in every year except 1999 when the percentage fell 2%. However, from 1999 to 2001 the combined Proficient and Advanced ELA percentage has increased from 28% to 60%. The change in ELA Failure percentage shows a similar trend, rising from 26% in 1998 to 35% in 1999 and then steadily falling to 10% in 2001. In Mathematics, the percentage of students scoring in Proficient and Advanced has shown marked improvement from 17% in 1999 to 58% in 2001.The reduction in Failure rates show steady and consistent decrease from 56% in 1998 to 15% in 2001.

Panel Reponses To The Key Questions

KEY QUESTION 1: Is This School Using Effective Improvement Initiatives That Could Be Replicated In Other Similarly Profiled Schools?

It was clear to the panel review team that the staff of Somerset High School has a shared vision and sense of purpose to increase student achievement through implementation of effective improvement initiatives that could be replicated in similarly profiled schools. Motivated by the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of l993 and the school's New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) review in 1998-2000, the school set itself on a comprehensive course of change that focused on establishing high standards and accountability tools. Many of the school's improvement gains were attributed to the school's adoption of the High Schools that Work program, a comprehensive school improvement initiative that helps schools incorporate assessment, accountability, benchmarks, and high achievement standards into teaching, learning and improvement planning efforts. While Educational Reform and the NEASC review helped establish the conditions for positive change, it is the HSTW initiative that most faculty and leadership credit with producing measurable improvements.

A. Which improvement initiatives have had the greatest impact on student performance results?

Somerset High School was chosen to apply for Compass School Panel Review based on its continuous record of improvement of MCAS results over the past three years. The school initiatives that have had the greatest impact on student performance include the adoption of the High Schools That Work (HSTW) model (financed through a Perkins grant) and its continued implementation through a structured action plan.

High Schools That Work is an initiative of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)-State Vocational Education Consortium. It is a whole school reform effort that offers a framework for improving the academic, technical, and intellectual achievement of career bound high school students. Perhaps for that reason the teachers at Somerset who were most familiar with the program and had the most developed and complete lesson plans were the teachers in the Vocational Education programs.

Many other teachers as well as the principal expressed the opinion that it was the self study and participation in the evaluation process of the NEASC that set the stage for school improvement efforts and helped to establish a culture of high standards and accountability that became incorporated into the school's current mission. Teachers told the review team that the NEASC review process caused them to begin to examine their own teaching practices and to become involved in the effort to implement change.

Another initiative credited with school improvement is the formation of an Outcomes Committee. This group, made up of teacher representatives from each content area, is charged with the responsibility of helping teachers develop rubrics in each subject area for each of the mission statement's expectations for student learning. The committee was assisted in their work by two consultants who trained the staff in developing measurable learning expectations. They have recently completed and published l9 rubrics to match the l9 expectations. These are generic rubrics but will inform more specific work within each department and for each discipline.

Finally, a curriculum coordinator (responsible for accountability and assessment in addition to curriculum) was hired two years ago to develop professional development strategies to support the HSTW protocol and to help teachers align it with the Massachusetts Frameworks. The Curriculum Coordinator also supervises middle and high school improvement efforts to help foster common practices across the district. Teachers indicated that students benefit from their familiarity with assessment and accountability strategies prior to arriving in the high school.

Evidence of these initiatives was collected through personal interviews and focus groups with teachers, the school profile and Compass School application as well as a reading of the NEASC and HSTW visitation reports.

B. How did the school plan their improvement initiatives and put them into practice?

The improvement efforts in Somerset School District began as a response to the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. The district began the process of assessing its current standards and then created a five-year strategic plan with the involvement of a diverse cross-section of the school and larger community.

Somerset High School developed its School Improvement and Strategic plans aligned with the District plan. These plans reflected the need to raise standards and to adopt a more performance based instructional/learning approach. The high school's plans were approved by the School Council. A whole school improvement model, High Schools That Work, was adopted as a framework for the comprehensive action plan. At the same time the school was preparing for NEASC evaluation. Common features in both the HSTW and NEASC assessments were identified and made part of the plan.

Although next year will be the last and final year of funding for the HSTW grant, the school expects to identify the essential amount of funding needed to maintain the program. Further efforts to insure the continuity of the initiative include the work of the Curriculum Committee, who will continue to develop rubrics and accountability measures for all departments. Curriculum alignment and revision is seen as an ongoing process that has become a part of the school culture and will continue to be overseen by this committee. Professional development in differentiated instructional strategies is also a core component of sustaining the Somerset improvement initiatives.

The effectiveness of the key initiatives is monitored through examination of MCAS results. Also, Curriculum coordinators do classroom visitations and examine student portfolios and conduct monthly departmental meetings to assess teacher effectiveness in implementing the initiatives. In spite of this oversight, the review team found inconsistent application of the instructional rubrics when it visited classrooms and interviewed teachers.

C. Does the school think these initiatives be successfully used in similar schools? Why?

Somerset High School believes these initiatives can be successfully used in similar schools. The principal has stated in the School Profile that the school could assist other school leaders and staff by demonstrating both the process and substance of their improvement initiatives. Teachers and administrators are open to having visitors in their school and have begun to do so since the school was named one of three schools, and the only comprehensive school in Massachusetts, as a High Schools That Work Pacesetter site. Many on the staff are comfortable about presenting information on technology in the writing process, writing across the curriculum and using rubrics across the curriculum as the Pacesetter visit agenda indicates.

The Outcomes Committee, responsible for establishment of rubrics to measure achievement and the HSTW Steering Committee are both an integral part of the school improvement effort. The Curriculum Committee has responsibility for curriculum development, assessment and accountability. It was difficult for the panel review team to determine how these groups interact and divide decision-making responsibilities. Although the Principal felt that this structure was inherently democratic and that the schedule and school culture provided ample opportunities for these groups to collaborate, the review team felt strongly that more clearly delineated areas of responsibility would be necessary to avoid duplication of work in the future.

As noted earlier, Somerset High School financed its engagement in the HSTW improvement initiative with a grant of $20,000 per year through the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Schools following the model adopted by Somerset would need to find a source of funding for the HSTW initiative. According to school personnel, three years of its implementation costs including incidental expenses have ranged between $25,000 and $35,000 per year, but the program offers a worthwhile and comprehensive framework of goals and key practices for improving achievement levels of all students. Less costly options might include adopting several of the HSTW individual strategies, such as increasing course requirements, developing a student advisory system, or the creation of common assessment rubrics which could be incorporated as part of a school's professional development and improvement initiatives.

Following is a partial listing of initiatives and best practices that administrators and teachers indicated they would be capable of sharing with other school leaders:

• Standards and expectations improvement initiatives resulting from the HSTW Action Plan and HSTW Key Practices.
• System-wide curriculum coordination efforts
• Incorporation of experiential learning in art, music and industrial technology
• Constructing and using a diverse committee to draft a mission and expectations statement
• Infusing technology to support student learning in auto mechanics, CAD and web page design and building a technology-strong learning environment
• Utilization of a school wide outcomes committee for developing rubrics to assess student progress in meeting the school's mission and expectations.

KEY QUESTION 2: Are The Conditions In Place For This School To Serve As A Model Of Effective Practices And Successful Improvement Initiatives?

The panel review team has given a qualified yes to this question. While not all staff that were interviewed or observed is using HSTW practices or can attribute student achievement gains to this initiative, the evidence is clear that many faculty are on-board. Teaching and learning practices have changed, and key leadership is in place and working through multiple points of contact to implement this initiative. The school's recent selection as one of three HSTW pacesetter sites in the state, as well as being the state's only comprehensive site, further confirms the ability of the school to model the best practices they have learned. In addition, last year the school hosted the HSTW "Pacesetter Observation and Site Visit," a two-day series of interviews and seven workshop presentations by faculty that showcase the school's content-area implementation of this program. The school community has willingly served on school improvement committees in a variety of areas. With the appointment of a District Director of Curriculum and under the leadership of the principal, work is continuing on curriculum development, improvement of instructional practices, supervision, assessment and evaluation of progress.

A. Do leadership and staff have a shared understanding and use a common language to describe the changes/initiatives that have led to improvements in teaching and learning?

For the most part, school personnel have a shared understanding and use a common language to describe changes/initiatives that have led to improvement in teaching and learning.

For example, teachers within their departments discuss the MCAS results in general and for their specific students in particular as reported by the department chairs. Teachers have participated in professional development in differentiated instructional practices and use these strategies in conjunction with the disaggregated data to maximize student learning.

Administrations and faculty have shown that they know that data, curriculum and learning standards need to be tied together to create a continuum of learning.

Although documents indicate and the principal has confirmed the low rate of faculty turnover, the school has a high number of senior faculty members who may retire in the near future. This is a concern of the panel team as it may adversely affect the institution's ability to maintain continuity in its programs.

B. How effectively do leadership and staff articulate the connections between specific changes and improvement initiatives they have implemented, and the improvements made in teaching and learning?

The main initiative in the school is the HSTW program but teacher interviews have shown that most of them feel that the force behind its success is the NEASC process that began with the faculty selfassessment. Both the initiative and the process of reaccredidation have a similar school improvement focus, i.e., raised expectations, high standards, curriculum development, accountability and assessment. Teachers have articulated that they agree with these objectives and can see its effect on student achievement as they work on improving their instructional practices.

However, not all teachers observed or interviewed share these common perceptions. Not everyone is familiar with the HSTW program even after several years in the school. Not all point to present initiatives as the reason for school improvement. It was noted by the panel that there is only one obligatory faculty meeting per month and without common planning time, discussions to explore connections between initiatives and student achievement may not occur. More consistent understandings may become a reality now that departments meet monthly with their curriculum coordinators.

C. Is there a school wide focus on, and sufficient investment in, continued improvement of student performance?

There is a school wide focus on continued improvement of student performance. Teachers and students alike talk of higher expectations and accountability for learning. Many references were made, in focus groups, to the positive effects of the NEASC and HSTW initiatives on increasing student achievement but the panelist did not see references to the standards or curriculum frameworks in the classrooms. Some, but not all the rooms did have the poster referring to the school's l7 expectations relative to student achievement, but many more displays of student work would assist in reinforcing the message.

The District Superintendent attended the opening meeting of the panel review to show his support for the school's Compass application. The principal expressed satisfaction with the level of financial support for the school from the district.

Two areas of concern are raised by the review team: first, inadequacy of the physical space as there is not a sufficiently large room for faculty meetings or even for some departmental meetings to provide opportunities for collegial discussions; second, in a school with approximately 110 faculty and staff, 57 have 27 or more years of experience in the profession. While this level of expertise is to be admired, it also raises questions about the future of the school's major initiatives if there are a sudden and large number of retirees. The panel is not aware of any plans the school or district has in place to address that possibility.

D. Does the school appear to have the capacity to host site visits and to participate in various activities to share effective strategies and practices with other schools in the state?

The School Leadership Team, made up of the three administrators, assured the panel review team that they have the capacity to host future visitors. The review team's visit was well coordinated and documents examined by the team indicate that visits by the NEASC and HSTW teams, both larger in number and longer in duration, went equally well.

Somerset school is neat, clean and obviously well maintained with adequate parking for visitors.

E. Are there any reasons why the school should not be used as a Commonwealth Compass School?

The review team found no reason why the Somerset High School should not be selected as a Commonwealth Compass School. The school has embarked on a formal and structured mission to improve student achievement and positive results are beginning to show in MCAS results and other assessments such as the HSTW evaluations. Staff and leadership can demonstrate effective practices and conduct demonstration lessons and workshops.

Appendix A
Team Members

Scott Kelley, Coordinator, MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA
Joe Trunk, Consultant, SchoolWorks, Beverly, MA
Karen Matheny, Title I Director, Framingham Schools, Framingham, MA
Ann Marie Carr-Reardon, Title I Director, Waltham School District, Waltham, MA
Mary Bourque, Assistant Principal, Chelsea High School, Chelsea, MA
Jane Daly, Assistant Principal, Dartmouth School District, Dartmouth, MA

Appendix B
Compass School Panel Review Visit Schedule

All activities take place at the school.