Assessment/Accountability
School and District Accountability and Assistance

Background and Context for School Review Reports

2000-2006 School Performance Rating Process

Between 2000 and 2006, school performance evaluations under the Massachusetts School and District Accountability System consisted of three stages: (1) School Performance Ratings - issued to all public schools, every two years. The ratings were used to flag schools with low performance and improvement and to identify schools that are potential exemplars of effective teaching and/or school administration practices for a more extensive evaluation; (2) School Panel Reviews - conducted annually at (a) schools selected for very low performance and little or no improvement on MCAS and other selection criteria, and (b) schools selected as finalist candidates to serve as exemplars of effective teaching and/or school administration practices; (3) Diagnostic Fact-Finding Reviews - conducted only at those schools declared to be under-performing by the Commissioner following completion of the Panel Review Process.

School Performance Ratings

The Massachusetts School and District Accountability System was approved on September 28, 1999, prior to the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Each school and district in the Commonwealth was assigned an overall performance rating and an overall improvement rating based on the school's performance on Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests over a two-year cycle. A school's or district's baseline performance determined the amount of improvement the school was expected to make during the rating cycle. Consequences for schools and districts were based upon both ratings.

With the passage of NCLB in 2002, performance and improvement ratings were used in conjunction with annual Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations to track schools' progress toward meeting the goal of all students achieving grade-level proficiency in English language arts (ELA) by the 2013-2014 school year, the principal goal of NCLB. These findings enabled the Commonwealth to identify instances of low performance and schools with exemplary improvement, and to guide the selection of schools and districts for further review by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) and its independent sister organization, the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (EQA).

Schools and districts that failed to meet State performance standards were candidates for review to assess whether State intervention was needed to direct improvement efforts. Schools demonstrating significant improvement were candidates for recognition and service in the Commonwealth Compass Schools program. Districts identified during the EQA examination process as having excellent practices in one or more areas were likewise recognized.

School Panel Review Reports

Schools referred to the second stage of the School Performance Rating Process underwent a Panel Review to assist the Commissioner of Education in making determinations on under-performance and on selection of Commonwealth Compass Schools.

Panels, consisting of 3-5 members, reviewed data and written information on a school's performance and improvement efforts and spent two days meeting with school and district leaders and visiting the school. The panels examined in detail student results for all students and various student groups, including attendance, dropout, and graduation data. Panel members visited classrooms and met with school and district officials. The Review Panel's charge was to advise the Commissioner, at the conclusion of the review process, of their judgment on two questions:

• Does the school under review appear to have a sound plan for improving student performance?
• Do the conditions appear to be in place for successful implementation of the school's improvement plan in the state's Commonwealth Compass Schools Program?

If the answer to either or both of these questions was no, the Commissioner had the option of declaring the school to be under-performing.

Diagnostic Fact-Finding Review Reports

Schools declared to be under-performing were referred to the third stage in the school evaluation process, the Fact-Finding Review for a more in-depth evaluation and analysis of these schools' systems and student performance, curriculum, instruction and assessment and educational programs and services.

The diagnostic review culminated in a detailed fact-finding report that pointed out areas of strength and weakness. The report also helped guide the development of the school improvement plan in accordance with regulations that required all schools declared under-performing to prepare and present a plan for approval of the Board of Education within six months. The school improvement plan was developed in collaboration with the district and with staff from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Two-Year Follow-Up Review Reports

Two-year underperforming school follow-up reviews were conducted by the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (EQA) between 2002 and 2008 under a subcontract with DOE. The purpose of the review was to assess whether the school demonstrated significant improvement consistent with its approved remedial plan within two years after Board approval of its plan. The underperforming follow-up review reports on progress at the end of this two year period of implementation. The Commissioner and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education use the follow-up review report to issue a judgment on the question of chronic underperformance at the school.