Peabody Public Schools
Review of District Systems and Practices Addressing the Differentiated Needs of English Language Learners
October 2010
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA02148-4906
Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370


This document was prepared on behalf of the Center for District and School Accountability of the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Members
Ms. Maura Banta, Chair, Melrose
Dr. Vanessa Calderón-Rosado, Milton
Ms. Harneen Chernow, Jamaica Plain
Mr. Gerald Chertavian, Cambridge
Mr. Michael D’Ortenzio, Jr., Chair, Student Advisory Council, Wellesley
Ms. Beverly Holmes, Springfield
Dr. Jeff Howard, Reading
Ms. Ruth Kaplan, Brookline
Dr. James E. McDermott, Eastham
Dr. Dana Mohler-Faria, Bridgewater
Mr. Paul Reville, Secretary of Education, Worcester
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner and Secretary to the Board
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 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, MA02148 781-338-6105.
© 2010 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, MA02148-4906
Phone 781-338-3000TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370


Table of Contents

Overview

Purpose

Selection of Districts

Methodology

Peabody Public Schools

District Profile

Student Performance

Findings

Leadership and Governance

Curriculum and Instruction

Assessment

Human Resources and Professional Development

Student Support

Recommendations

Leadership and Governance

Curriculum and Instruction

Assessment

Human Resources and Professional Development

Student Support

Appendix A: Review Team Members

Appendix B: Review Activities and Site Visit Schedule

Overview

Purpose

The Center for District and School Accountability (CDSA) in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) is undertaking a series of reviews of school districts to determine how well district systems and practices support groups of students for whom an achievement gap exists. The reviews will focus in turn on how district systems and practices affect each of four groups of students: students with disabilities, English language learners (ELLs), low-income students, and students who are members of racial minorities. Spring 2010 reviews aim to identify district and school factors contributing to relatively high growth for limited English proficient (LEP) student performance in selected schools, to provide recommendations for improvement on district and school levels to maintain or accelerate the growth in student achievement, and to promote the dissemination of promising practices among Massachusetts public schools. This review complies with the requirements of Chapter 15, Section 55A, to conduct district audits in districts whose students achieve at high levels relative to districts that educate similar student populations. The review is part of ESE’s program to recognize schools as “distinguished schools” under section 1117(b) of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allows states to use Title I funds to reward schools that significantly closed the achievement gap. Districts and schools with exemplary practices identified through the review process may serve as models for and provide support to other districts and schools.

Selection of Districts

ESE identified 36 Title I schools in 14 districts where the performance of students with limited English proficiency (LEP students) exceeds expectations. All Massachusetts schools receiving Title I funds were eligible for identification, with the exception of reconfigured schools or schools that did not serve tested grades for the years under review. ESE staff analyzed MCAS data from 2008 and 2009 to identify schools that narrowed performance gaps between LEP students and all students statewide. The methodology compared the MCAS raw scores of LEP students enrolled in the schools with the predicted MCAS raw scores of LEP students statewide. The methodology also incorporated whether LEP students improved their performance from 2008 to 2009. “Gap closers” did not have to meet AYP performance or improvement targets, but did have to meet 2009 AYP targets for participation, attendance and high school graduation, as applicable. Districts with gap closers were invited to participate in a comprehensive district review to identify district and school practices associated with stronger performance for LEP students, as part of ESE’s distinguished schools program (described above), “Impact of District Programs and Support on School Improvement: Identifying and Sharing Promising School and District Practices for Limited English Proficient Students.”

Methodology

To focus the analysis, reviews explore five areas: Leadership and Governance, Curriculum and Instruction, Assessment, Human Resources and Professional Development, and Student Support.The reviews seek to identify those systems and practices that are most likely to be contributing to positive results, as well as those that may be impeding rapid improvement. Systems and practices that are likely to be contributing to positive results were identified from the ESE’s District Standards and Indicators and from a draft report of the English Language Learners Sub-Committee of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Committee on the Proficiency Gap[1]. Reviews are evidence-based and data-driven. Four to eight team members preview selected documents and ESE data and reports before conducting a two-day site visit in the district and a two-day site visit to schools. The team consists of independent consultants with expertise in each of the five areas listed above, as well as English language learner education (to collect evidence across all areas).

Peabody Public Schools

The site visit to the Peabody Public Schools was conducted on May 26–27, 2010 (district) and on June 1–2, 2010 (school). The site visit included two visits to the WilliamA.WelchSr.Elementary School (Pre-K–5), which was identified as a “gap closer” for its limited English proficient students, as described above. Further information about the review and the site visit schedule can be found in Appendix B, while information about the members of the review team can be found in Appendix A.

District Profile[2]

In the 2009–2010 school year, the Peabody Public Schools served 6,093 students in eight elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. All elementary schools provide full day kindergarten for children who were five years old as of September 1, 2009. Three of the elementary schools, Captain Samuel Brown, ThomasCarroll, and William A. Welch Sr., receive support through Title I. The Title I schools provide pre-kindergarten services for Peabody children.

From October 1, 2005 to October 1, 2009, the total population of students in the Peabody Public Schools decreased from a high in 2005 of 6,383 to a low in 2009 of 6,093. During this period, the average class size remained at about 20 students in grades 1 through 5 and, with the exception of the 2006–2007 school year, less than 20 students per class in kindergarten. The district is committed to maintaining class size below 20 in kindergarten. The districtwide student/FTE teacher ratio in 2009–2010 was 14.4 to 1.

In 2009–2010, there were 421.7 FTE teachers in the Peabody Public Schools. Of these teachers, 98.3% were licensed in their assigned teaching area. Teachers who were highly qualified taught 96.7% of the core academic classes in Peabody.

In 2009–2010, the proportions of first language not English and special education students in Peabody were larger than the proportions of those populations statewide. The proportion of LEP students was slightly lower than the statewide average in 2009–2010 (5.8% in Peabody compared to 6.2% statewide).

The school under review, WilliamA.WelchSr.Elementary School, served 295 students in grades Pre-K through 5 during the 2009–2010 school year and received support through Title I. Welch is the second smallest school in the district. All of the 22.8 FTE teachers who serve the students at Welch are licensed to teach in their assigned areas and all core classes are taught by highly qualified teachers. The student/FTE teacher ratio at Welch in 2009–2010 was 12.9 to 1. As shown in Table 1, the Welch school serves a significantly larger proportion of Hispanic, first language not English, LEP, and students from low income families than the district as a whole. Interviews with district and school staff suggested that Welch also serves a significant population of homeless children.

Table 1 provides demographic information that describes the student population districtwide and at the WilliamA.WelchSr.Elementary School.

Table 1: PeabodyPublic Schoolsand WilliamA.WelchSr.Elementary School (Pre-K–5)

Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity and Selected Populations 2009–2010

Selected Populations
/ Percent of Total District / Percent of Welch Elem / Selected Populations / Percent of Total District / Percent of Welch Elem
African-American / 2.0 / 2.4 / First Language not English / 19.5 / 43.7
Asian / 1.7 / 1.7 / Limited English Proficient / 5.8 / 34.6
Hispanic or Latino / 12.2 / 30.5 / Low-income / 28.3 / 61.7
Native American / 0.2 / 0.0 / Special Education / 17.9 / 16.6
White / 81.3 / 61.4 / Free Lunch / 23.9 / 53.6
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander / 0.0 / 0.0 / Reduced-price lunch / 4.4 / 8.1
Multi-Race,
Non-Hispanic / 2.5 / 4.1 / Male/Female Ratio / 3,104/2,989 / 150/145

Note: Shaded cells highlight marked differences between the WelchSchool and district populations.

Source:School/District Profiles on ESE website

As noted by the Educational Management Audit Council on p. 8 of their report How is Your School District Performing (for the period 2002–2005), “…the administrative staff in the Peabody Public Schools had changed significantly since the beginning of 2000. Five different individuals had served as superintendent since January 1, 2000.” There was also a significant turnover of principals during that time period that resulted in none of the principals having more than two years in their position. Since that time, one superintendent has led the district. There has, however, been turnover that affects the district’s program for ELLs. A full-time English as a second language (ESL) program director served the district from 2005 through 2009; however, the director was on leave for much of the 2008–2009 school year. During that time, the assistant superintendent coordinated the ESL programs. The ESL director left the district at the end of the 2008–2009 school year and the assistant superintendent assumed her duties. The assistant superintendent resigned in May 2010 and, based on input from the superintendent, it is unlikely that the assistant superintendent’s position will be filled due to limited funding. The superintendent stated that he will assume the duties of the assistant superintendent, including overseeing the ESL program. These facts suggest that effective leadership for the ESL program going forward is likely to be compromised.

Student Performance[3]

PeabodyPublic School’s 2009 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability status was corrective action for subgroups in both English language arts (ELA) and mathematics based on student performance on the 2009 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment (MCAS) tests. Peabody’s district performance rating was high in ELA and moderate in mathematics, and the improvement rating was no change from the prior year. Between 2007 and 2009, Peabody Public Schools made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in ELA at the elementary level (grades 3–5) only at the aggregate level on the 2007 test. Peabody did not make AYP in ELA at the subgroup level in any of the three years. In 2009, Peabody did not make AYP for special education, low- income, or Hispanic/Latino students.

In contrast to the district, the WilliamA.WelchSr.School received a 2009 NCLB accountability rating of no status in both ELA and mathematics. The school’s performance rating was high in ELA and moderate in mathematics, and the improvement rating was on target for ELA and no change in mathematics. Over the past two years, the Welch school made AYP in the aggregate and for all subgroups in 2008 and 2009 in ELA. Although Welch students met the improvement target at the aggregate level in ELA on the 2009 MCAS test, they did not reach the state Composite Performance Index (CPI) target of 90.2, with a CPI of only 82.7.Table 2 provides data on the 2009 AYP statuses of both the district and the Welch school.

Table 2: PeabodyPublic Schools and WilliamA.WelchSr.Elementary School (Pre-K–5)

2009 District and School AYP Status

ELA
/
Math
District/School / Status 09 / CPI 09 / CPI Chg
08-09 / AYP
Agg / AYP Sub / Status 09 / CPI 09 / CPI Chg 08-09 / AYP Agg / AYP Sub
Peabody / CA-S / 87.4 / 0.9 / Yes / No / CA-S / 76.6 / 0.7 / Yes / No
Welch Elementary
(Pre-K–5) / No Status / 82.7 / 2.7 / Yes / Yes / No Status / 76.7 / -0.5 / No / No

Note: A or Agg = Aggregate; CA = Corrective Action; CPI = Composite Performance Index; II1 = Identified for Improvement year 1; II2 = Identified for Improvement year 2; RST1 = Restructuring year 1; RST2 = Restructuring year 2; S or Sub = Subgroup

Source: School/District Profiles on ESE website.

LEP students at Welch fell short of the state CPI performance target for ELA by a larger margin than did Welch students in the aggregate on the 2009 MCAS test (with a CPI of 76.7 for LEP students); however, they met the improvement target by showing a substantial increase in performance from 2008 to 2009. Table 3 describes the performance of all tested LEP/FLEP students at Welch on the past three tests (2007–2009). Although performance fell slightly on the 2008 test, there was substantial improvement from 2007 to 2009. When considering this data, it is important to note that the data does not describe the longitudinal performance of a same-student cohort.

Table 3: WilliamA.WelchSr.Elementary School (Pre-K–5)

MCAS ELA Performance of LEP/FLEP Students Reported in CPI Points

Welch Elementary(Grades 3–5) / 2007 / 2008 / 2009
English Language Arts / 71.2 / 68.1 / 76.7

Source: School/District Profiles on ESE website (AYP Data report for each year).

Growth, particularly for low-performing subgroups, is often difficult to determine when using static yearly measures such as performance levels or CPI. The student growth percentile (SGP) provides a wider picture of overall student performance by measuring growth in performance between years. Specifically, SGP compares changes from year to year in a student’s MCAS test scores to changes in the MCAS test scores of other students statewide with similar score histories. Table 4 displays the student growth distribution for LEP and non-LEP students in grades 4 and above at Welch, as SGP is only calculated for students with previous MCAS testing. Note that data is only provided for 10 LEP students in grades 4 and 5 (in 2009) at Welch; therefore, this limited population must be taken into consideration when making inferences from this data. That being said, it is interesting that 40 percent of these LEP students had low growthbetween 2008 and 2009, while 51 percent of non-LEP students showed less than moderate growth. Fifty percent of LEP students showed greater than moderate growth, while only 35 percent of non-LEP students showed high or very high growth. Finally, although a higher proportion of non-LEP students reached proficiency in 2009 (61 percent) than that of LEP students (20 percent), the data, though limited, suggest that LEP students in grades 4 and 5 showed higher rates of growth between 2008 and 2009 than their non-LEP peers.

Table 4: WilliamA.WelchSr.Elementary School (Pre-K–5)

ELA Student Growth Distribution by LEP Status 2008 to 2009

LEP Status / Very Low / Low / Moderate / High / Very High / Proficient
N / n / % / n / % / n / % / n / % / n / % / %
LEP Students / 10 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 40 / 1 / 10 / 5 / 50 / 0 / 0 / 20
Non-LEP Students / 82 / 15 / 18 / 27 / 33 / 11 / 13 / 11 / 13 / 18 / 22 / 61

Source: School/District Profiles on ESE website

Findings

Leadership and Governance

The principal at the Welch school places a high priority on meeting the educational, social, and emotional needs of all ELLs and provides the leadership and organizational structures necessary to meet those needs.

The principal of the Welch school has served in that capacity since 2006, arriving in Peabody as an experienced curriculum instructional teacher from a high-incidence ELL school in Lynn, Massachusetts. She inherited an experienced staff committed to learning for all students, and possesses a special passion for ELLs and an understanding of the challenges that they face. Two previous principals had very brief tenures.Interviews with the Welch faculty members suggested that these principals did not take full advantage of the faculty’s special dedication to ELLs. With high expectations for ELLs and a vision for how to meet their needs, the current principal organized the school and secured resources and supports to enable the staff to achieve that goal.

During interviews with the review team, administrators attributed the success at the Welch school to several factors, including strong leadership from the principal, a competent and dedicated staff, resources for learning, school schedule, collaboration, data-informed decision making, and the culture of the school. Several interviewees stressed that the principal orchestrated all elements of the school to maximize success.

The principal’s special passion for ELLs is rooted in her own personal experience as an ELL. As an educator and school leader, this empathy has framed her commitment to this population. She has high expectations for her students’ success and for her school and school system to meet the educational, social, and emotional needs of all ELLs.

Located in an area where housing is affordable for immigrants, the Welch school has served ELLs for many years. Over those years, the staff members who stayed on at the school were those who enjoyed working with this population. For a period of time, this was also true of one principal who had a long tenure at the school. As mentioned previously, when that principal retired, the next two principals did not fully take advantage of the faculty’s special dedication to ELLs, and their tenure lasted a total of two years. The current principal brings a vision for how to organize such a school for student success.