The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

Gill-Montague identified several key challenges and developed its AIP based on the following Strategic Objectives:

• Objective 1: To improve the performance of all students through high quality instruction measured through a system of data collection and analysis.
• Objective 2: To utilize student outcome data to modify curriculum, improve teaching and learning for all students, and identify professional development needs.
• Objective 3: To provide professional development resulting in improved teaching practice and student outcomes as measured by classroom observations, teacher evaluations of professional development, and improved student outcomes.
• Objective 4: To create a teacher evaluation tool that promotes collaboration, student-centered learning, and the use of research based instructional practices that result in improved student outcomes.

Gill-Montague made steady progress toward each of these objectives. The district updated its curricula, developed strategies for periodic observation and feedback regarding instruction, and improved its system for planning and providing professional development for teachers. It also implemented a more thoughtful approach to using data to inform instruction, and improved its communication with teachers and families concerning district initiatives. Despite significant turnover in the district (there is currently an interim superintendent and the district recently hired a consulting firm to manage financial and operations functions), I have more confidence at this time that Gill-Montague has the ability and commitment necessary to continue its improvement. The interim superintendent has developed an AIP that maintains the objectives from last year's AIP and intentionally builds on the work done last year. The Department's regional District and School Assistance Center (DSAC) continues to provide ongoing support to Gill-Montague.

Given Gill-Montague's careful implementation of its AIP last year, its level of performance, and the commitment to progress that the district and school committee have demonstrated to date, I will consider removing Gill-Montague from Level 4 once the district meets these conditions:

(1) a permanent superintendent is appointed to lead the district, and
(2) the superintendent provides me with a clear commitment to implement the Accelerated Improvement Plan, including a plan for how the district intends to operationalize all of the strategies set out in the AIP.

Holyoke also made significant progress last year. The district's Strategic Objectives were as follows:

• Objective 1: Improve instructional quality by building leadership capacity throughout the district to continuously improve teaching and learning.
• Objective 2: Foster a cycle of continuous improvement and accountability by using data to effectively examine and improve practice.
• Objective 3: 85% of all Holyoke children will be proficient readers by the end of third grade by 2014.
• Objective 4: Focus on literacy in grades 4-8.

I am pleased to report that Holyoke used its AIP to make significant changes to its systems and practices. The district strengthened its principals' ability to help teachers improve their instruction. It required principals to develop School Improvement Plans that were aligned with the goals and activities in the AIP. It overhauled its student data system, developed systems for analyzing and responding to student data, and implemented specific strategies to increase students' literacy. Holyoke's 2012-2013 AIP is designed to build on the progress made last year, and focuses on increasing instructional rigor in every classroom. The district works with a Department liaison who provides technical assistance in support of district goals.

The New Bedford district experienced a great deal of change last year, including the retirement of its superintendent during the school year and a second New Bedford school being designated as Level 4. I did not approve the initial AIP that the district submitted, due to concerns that it did not adequately identify the kind of systemic changes necessary to promote accelerated student outcomes. In January 2012, I approved New Bedford's proposed Strategic Objectives, which served as a set of guidelines the district used to guide important changes in its practice. In June 2012, I approved New Bedford's revised AIP in its entirety. The AIP's objectives were:

• Objective 1: Prepare all NBPS students for college and career success by implementing rigorous standards.
• Objective 2: Develop a culture of using data to improve instructional practice and decision-making.
• Objective 3: Expand school and staff capacity to deliver effective engaging instruction to all students.
• Objective 4: Raise expectations for student achievement and increase student ownership of their learning.

New Bedford made progress in updating its curricula and in establishing some systems related to analyzing student data. The district made significant progress in creating and refining an approach to Learning Walks, as a way to observe trends in instruction and provide feedback to teachers. New Bedford has received accolades for its unique school and community campaign to improve student attendance, which became a visible element throughout the district. Other district initiatives, including the effort to improve passing rates at the high school level, were less successful. While I am encouraged by the improvement I saw in New Bedford's AIP over the course of the year and by the district's efforts to put new strategies in place, I remain concerned about dropout and 9th grade retention rates in New Bedford, and I plan to watch the district's selection of a new superintendent closely.

Randolph's AIP was based on the following objectives:

• Objective 1: Ensuring success for all students through high quality learning and teaching.
• Objective 2: Ensuring success for all students through high quality professional development.
• Objective 3: Ensuring success for all students through high quality accountability systems.

Randolph made progress in implementing all of these objectives. The district developed a set of instructional practices, "The Randolph Way," which defined what was expected in all classrooms. Working with the District and School Assistance Center, the district revised curricula, provided professional development to administrators and teachers to support the AIP strategies, and put new accountability systems in place for administrators and teachers. Randolph also instituted an improved system of formal and informal classroom observations. Although the district did not make significant gains overall, its elementary grades showed an encouraging degree of growth. I am hopeful that improvement will continue in Randolph and will be extended to the secondary level.

Southbridge struggled last year to produce an AIP that met my approval, despite extensive feedback and support from the Department. In April 2012, I formally accepted the following objectives as working guidelines:

• Objective 1: Implement high quality curriculum and instruction programs to support the achievement of all students.
• Objective 2: Establish a data driven culture to support and monitor the achievement of all students.
• Objective 3: Provide high quality professional development programs to support the achievement of all learners/students.

Because it lacked a viable AIP for most of the year, Southbridge was only able to begin implementation of some elements in its AIP. Southbridge developed a document identifying the instructional practices that are expected to be used in all classrooms, and trained all administrators and teachers to use the document. Southbridge also trained staff in the Response to Intervention approach, with the goal of addressing the needs of all students. This year, the district is working with the District and School Assistance Center to implement an updated AIP, which I approved this month. The district's progress and challenges related to the AIP are described in its Summative Report.

Fall River's AIP represents a continuation of its previous Recovery Plan, under which it made significant improvement to district systems. The AIP that I approved for Fall River includes goals for the district overall and for the Fall River School Committee. Because of Fall River's experience developing and monitoring its Recovery Plan, I did not assign a Plan Manager to that district. The district has a Department liaison to provide technical assistance and I have provided a Department consultant to support leadership and governance. I have assigned a Plan Monitor to Fall River to ensure that the district's progress is regularly reviewed and reported.

Salem worked diligently to develop a coherent, ambitious set of strategies that would be likely to lead to accelerated improvement during the first three months of the 2012-2013 school year. The district submitted a plan in December 2012 that met our standards and has been approved. Implementation is now underway with DSAC support.