Abington District Review

District Review Report

Abington Public Schools

Review conducted March 3-6, 2014

Center for District and School Accountability

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Organization of this Report

Abington Public Schools District Review Overview

Abington Public Schools District Review Findings

Abington Public Schools District Review Recommendations

Appendix A: Review Team, Activities, Site Visit Schedule

Appendix B: Enrollment, Performance, Expenditures

Appendix C: Instructional Inventory

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Phone 781-338-3000TTY: N.E.T. Replay 800-439-2370

This document was prepared by the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.

Commissioner

Published October 2014

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.

© 2014 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

This document printed on recycled paper

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Phone 781-338-3000TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370

Abington District Review

AbingtonPublic Schools District Review Overview

Purpose

Conducted under Chapter 15, Section 55A of the Massachusetts General Laws, district reviews support local school districts in establishing or strengthening a cycle of continuous improvement. Reviews consider carefully the effectiveness of systemwide functions,with reference tothe six district standards used by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE): leadership and governance, curriculum and instruction, assessment, human resources and professional development, student support, and financial and asset management.Reviews identify systems and practices that may be impeding improvement as well as those most likely to be contributing to positive results.

Districts reviewed in the 2013-2014 school year include districts classified into Level 2 or Level 3of ESE’s framework for district accountability and assistance. Review reports may be used by ESE and the district to establish priority for assistance and make resource allocation decisions.

Methodology

Reviews collect evidence for each of the six district standards above.A district review team consisting of independent consultants with expertise in each of the district standards reviewsdocumentation, data, and reports for two days before conducting a four-day district visit that includes visits to individual schools. The team conducts interviews and focus group sessions with such stakeholders as school committee members, teachers’ association representatives, administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Team members also observe classroom instructional practice. Subsequent to the onsite review, the team meets for two days to develop findings and recommendations before submitting a draft report to ESE. District review reports focus primarily on the system’s most significant strengths and challenges, with an emphasis on identifying areas for improvement.

Site Visit

The site visit to the Abington School District was conducted from March 3-6, 2014. The site visit included 28 hours of interviews and focus groups with approximately75 stakeholders, including school committee members, district administrators, school staff,and teachers’ association representatives. The review team conducted 4 focus groups with 5 elementary school teachers, 13 middle school teachers, 8 high school teachers, and 6 students.

A list of review team members, information about review activities, and the site visit schedule are in Appendix A, and Appendix B provides information about enrollment, student performance, and expenditures. The team observed classroom instructional practice in 67classrooms in 5 schools. The team collected data using an instructional inventory, a tool for recording observed characteristics of standards-based teaching. This data is contained in Appendix C.

District Profile

The Abington School District has a town manager form of government and the chair of the school committee is elected. There are 5members of the school committee and they meet monthly.

The current superintendent has been in the position since 2007-2008. The district leadership team includesa superintendent, two assistant superintendents, an elementary director of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and a director of technology. Central office positions have been mostly stable in number with the exception of the addition this year of the elementary director of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The district hasfiveprincipals leadingfive schools. There are other school administrators, including three assistant principals. There were127.4 teachers in the district in 2013-2014.

In the 2013-2014school year, 1,954 studentswere enrolled in the district’s fiveschools:

Table 1: Abington Public Schools

Schools, Type, Grades Served, and Enrollment* 2013-2014

School Name / School Type / Grades Served / Enrollment
Center Elementary School / EES / PK-K / 179
Beaver Brook Elementary School / ES / 1-4 / 646
Woodsdale Elementary School / ES / 5-6 / 340
Frolio Middle School / MS / 7-8 / 329
Abington High School / HS / 9-12 / 460
Totals / 5schools / PK-12 / 1,954
*As of October 1, 2013

Between 2010 and 2014 overall student enrollment decreased by approximately 10 percent. Enrollment figures by race/ethnicity and high needs populations (i.e., students with disabilities, students from low-income families, and English language learners (ELLs) and former ELLs) as compared withthe state are provided in Tables B1a and B1b in Appendix B.

Total in-district per-pupil expenditures were lower than the median in-district per pupil expenditure for 51 public school districts of similar size (1,000-1,999 students) in fiscal year 2013: $10,766 as compared with $12,506. Actual net school spending has been above what is required by the Chapter 70 state education aid program, as shown in Table B8 in Appendix B.

Student Performance[1]

As of the date of the onsite review, Abington was a Level 2 district because Frolio Middle School and Abington High were in Level 2.

  • Woodsdale Elementary was in Level 1 in the 49th percentile of elementary schools with a cumulative Progress Performance Index (PPI) of 81 for all students and 83 for high needs students;the target is 75.
  • Frolio Middle was in the 34th percentile of middle schools and Abington High was in the 26th percentile of high schools. Frolio Middle and Abington High were in Level 2 for not meeting their gap narrowing goals for all students and high needs students. Abington High was also in Level 2 for low MCAS participation (less than 95 percent) for all students and white students.

The district did not reach its 2013 Composite Performance Index (CPI) targets for ELA, math, and science.

  • ELA CPI was 86.9 in 2013, below the district’s target of 90.3.
  • Math CPI was 78.6 in 2013, below the district’s target of 81.5.
  • Science CPI was 74.5 in 2013, below the district’s target of 77.3.

ELA proficiency rates in Abington were below the state rates for the district as a whole and for grades 3 through 5, but were above or equal to the state rates in grades 6, 7, 8, and 10.

  • ELA proficiency in 2013 for all students in the district was 69 percent in 2010 and 67 percent in 2013, 2 percentage points below the state rate of 69 percent.
  • ELA proficiency in 2013 was lower than the state rate by 6 percentage points in the 3rd grade, by 7 percentage points in the 4th grade, and by 2 percentage points in the 5th grade.
  • ELA proficiency rates were lower in 2013 than 2010 by 12 percentage points in grade 3, by 10 percentage points in grade 6, and by 3 percentage points in grade 7.
  • ELA proficiency was higher than the state rate by 5 percentage points in the 6th grade, by 2 percentage points in the 8th grade, by 1 percentage point in the 10th grade, and equal to the state rate in 7th grade.
  • ELA proficiency was higher in 2013 than 2010 by 4 percentage points in the 4th and 5th grade, by 2 percentage points in the 8th grade, and by 5 percentage points in the 10th grade.

Math proficiency rates were below the state rate for the district as a whole and for every grade except the 5th and 6th grades located in Woodsdale Elementary.

  • Math proficiency for all students in the district was 55 percent in 2010 and 2013, 6 percentage points below the state rate of 61 percent in 2013.
  • Math proficiency was lower than the state rate by 10 percentage points in the 3rd grade, by 15 percentage points in the 4th grade, by 7 percentage points in the 7th grade, by 6 percentage points in the 8th grade, and by 2 percentage points in the 10th grade.
  • Math proficiency was lower in 2013 than 2010 by 6 percentage points in the 4th and 7th grades.
  • Math proficiency was higher than the state rate by 4 percentage points in the 5th grade and by 2 percentage points in the 6th grade, both located in Woodsdale Elementary.
  • Math proficiency was higher in 2013 than 2010 by 11 percentage points in grade 5, by percentage points in grades 8, and by 2 percentage points in grade 10.

Students with disabilities did not meet their 2013 CPI targets in ELA and math and ELA and math proficiency rates for students with disabilities were below the state rates.

  • ELA CPI for students with disabilities was 62.9 in 2013 below the target of 72.1 and ELA proficiency was 23 percent in 2013, 7 percentage points lower than the 2010 rate of 30 percent; below the state rate of 30 percent.
  • Math CPI for students with disabilities was 51.2 in 2013 below the target of 57.6 and math proficiency was 16 percent in 2013, below the state rate of 22 percent.

Science proficiency in the district was below the state rate and lower in 2013 than in 2010 for all tested grades.

  • 5th grade science proficiency was 33 percent in 2013, 14 percentage points lower than the 2010 rate of 47percent, and 18 percentage points below the state rate of 51 percent.
  • 8th grade science proficiency was 33 percent in 2010 and 32 percent in 2013, 7 percentage points below the state rate of 39 percent.
  • 10th grade science proficiency was 64 percent in 2013, 14 percentage points below the 2010 rate of 78percent, and 7 percentage points below the state rate of 71 percent.

Abington met its 2014 four year cohort graduation rate target of 80.0 percent and did not meet the five year cohort graduation rate target of 85.0 percent.[2]

  • The four year cohort graduation was 86.8 percent in 2010 and 88.9 percent in 2013, above the state rate of 85.0 percent.
  • The five year cohort graduation was 84.3 percent in 2012, 8.4 percentage points lower than the 2009 rate of 92.7 percent, and below the state rate of 87.5 percent.
  • The annual dropout rate for Abington was 2.3 percent in 2010 and 1.2 percent in 2013, below the statewide rate of 2.2 percent.

Abington Public SchoolsDistrict Review Findings

Strengths

Leadership & Governance

1. Stability in leadership, particularly at the central office, has created a leadership team notable for a spirit of cooperation, collaboration, and consistency of practice.

A.The superintendent has held his current position for seven years, and had previously served in two other leadership roles in the district for an additional seven years. The two assistant superintendents have combined leadership service of 16 years in the district.

B.Collaboration, cooperation, and consistency within the leadership team are fostered through a series of districtwide scheduled meetings, which place an emphasis on implementing the new educator evaluation system as well as monitoring goal achievement.

1. The central office leadership team meets every Monday morning.

a. Among the items discussed are the agendas for both the leadership and management meetings to be held with the principals.

2. Monthly leadership meetings are held with the principals.

a.One administrator said, “I’ve never seen such a communicative team. They stay true to what they say.”

b.Included in the leadership meetings are the teachers’ association president and vice president. This contributes to the positive relationship between the administration and the association.Members of the teachers’ association stated they have an open line of communication with the superintendent.

c.Department heads attend these meetings as well. This creates a channel of direct communication to the teachers.

d.A review of the agendas of the leadership team meetings from September 17, 2013, through February 25, 2014,showed that the implementation of the educator evaluation system was an agenda topic at each meeting.

i.Implementing the educator evaluation system is one of the superintendent’s goals for 2013-2014.

3.Separate from the leadership meetings, monthly management meetings are also held with the principals.

a.A review of the agendas of the management team meetings from August 20, 2013, through February 11, 2014,indicated that the principals have an opportunity at each meeting to raise issues related to facilities, personnel, programs, and students.

b.Matters involving finance, technology, and personnel are also discussed at these meetings.

4.A Joint Labor Management Committee (JLMC) composed of teachers and administrators has been collaborating to revise the Abington Faculty Handbook. In addition to this collaboration, together they have overseen the implementation of the new educator evaluation system.

a.The work and deliberations of the JLMC frequently appear on the leadership team meeting agendas.

b.Teachers’ association members expressed a positive view of the educator evaluation system,stating that the process is a catalyst for dialogue about issues around teaching and learning.

5.The Curriculum Planning & Professional Development Council, composed of administrators, principals, department heads, department chairs, and curriculum coordinators, meets monthly to discuss curriculum issues, and to stay on top of districtwide goals with input from school leadership.

a.Teachers at all levels within the district spoke of a positive administrative attitude, and described the superintendent and administrators as approachable.

6.Through meetings of the school councils, the School Improvement Plans (SIPs) at each school are developed and monitored throughout the year.

a.Administrators reported that the strategic plan serves as a guide to provide a strong alignment between the district strategic plan and the SIPs.

b.The superintendent told the team that the district improvement plan is updated annually, and his goals are aligned with the strategic plan as well as those of the teachers and principals.

c.Teachers reported that an annual survey at the beginning of the school year determines the content of the SIPs.

d.Parent members of the school councils asserted that the SIP at each school is considered an important document and is reviewed by the school council.

C.From the inception of the team budget development process to its finalization, the budget is considered to be a reflection of the needs of the entire district, not of the particular schools.

1.The principals characterized their budget deliberations as collaborative with a clear recognition, for example, that large class sizes at the elementary level have a future impact on student performance at the secondary level. The approach of the principals, they collectively reported, was to think of the district as a whole.

a.The school committee described the relationship with the superintendent as very good, and added that he was open, careful, and a person of integrity.

b.Harmony is a distinctive and prevalent factor in the relationship between the school district and the town and is a key element in successfully presenting a budget that reflects the needs of the district. School committee members described the relationship between the district and the town as collegial, and town officials, in turn, characterized the relationship as being both good and cohesive.

Impact:The unified nature and the organizational collaboration of the leadership team infuse the district and the community with a spirit of cooperation and good will. The addition of a determination to achieve the goals in the district strategic plan and the SIPsmeans that the district can operate successfully with very limited resources in a challenging environment.

Human Resources and Professional Development

2.The district is continuing its record of evaluating all staff on a timely basis, this year (2013-2014) concentrating on introducing the educator evaluation system and making sure that all staff have completed each step of the process following an agreed upon schedule.

  1. Staff has participated fully in the evaluation process during this first year of implementation.
  1. The team reviewed the evaluations of all fourcentral office administrators, all fiveschool principals, and a random sample of teachers. The review included evaluations from previous years as well as from this year.
  2. All staff members reviewed had entered self-assessments, individual educator plans, and several pieces of evidence in support of their work on the plan. In addition, each evaluator had completed at least one observation, in most cases two, and entered these observations into the evaluation files.
  1. The district administration and the teachers’ association have worked collaboratively to implement the new educator evaluation system, a mentoring/peer assistance program for all teachers without professional statusand for those on corrective action, and an agreed-upon schedule for teacher observations and administrative feedback.
  1. The district and the teachers’ association adopted ESE’s model collective bargaining language with minor changes.
  2. As part of its new evaluation system, the district and the teachers’ association have created a JLMC team that promotes a smooth and collaborative process to discuss critical educational and leadership issues.
  3. The mentoring program was cited by the teachers’ association as one of the best things that has come out of the new educator evaluation system. The association credits the system with leading to the first systemic mentoring program within the district for supporting new teachers.
  4. The district chose a software program called Baseline Edge to manage the documents and data related to theeducator evaluation process.

Impact: As a result of using a collaborative process to implement the initial components of the educator evaluation system, the district is in good position to make changes and improve the quality of the program as challenges arise.