Report to the Legislature:
Intervention and Targeted Assistance Efforts
Line Item 7061-9408
March 2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906
Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370
www.doe.mass.edu
This document was prepared by 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
Ms. Harneen Chernow, Vice Chair, Jamaica Plain
Dr. Vanessa Calderón-Rosado, Milton
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, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.
© 2011 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 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370
www.doe.mass.edu
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary & Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-4906
Telephone: (781) 338-3000
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
March 2011
Dear Members of the General Court:
I am pleased to submit this Report to the Legislature: Intervention and Targeted Assistance Efforts
pursuant to Chapter 131 of the Acts of 2010, line item 7061-9408:
“For targeted intervention to schools and districts at risk of or determined to be underperforming
under sections 1J and 1K of chapter 69 of the General Laws, schools and districts which have
been placed in the accountability status of identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring pursuant to departmental regulations, or which have been designated
Commonwealth Priority Schools or Commonwealth Pilot Schools pursuant to said
regulations….”
This report outlines recent efforts and outcomes in regard to intervention and targeted assistance as
funded by this line of the state budget. We continue to refine our approach by incorporating lessons
learned from past efforts, promising practices, and new state and federal statutory tools.
During FY10 and at the start of FY11 the Department has focused its targeted assistance efforts on
building the capacity of the 10 Commissioner’s Districts, the 4 districts formerly designated as
Underperforming and now identified as Level 4 districts, and Level 3 districts in our 6 state regions in
order that the districts may more effectively support their schools, particularly targeting the 35 Level 4
(underperforming) schools and the 309 Level 3 schools. Current funding levels have enabled us to address
these priority schools, although not as comprehensively as can be imagined.
While the body of the report focuses on the activities funded by the 9408 line item, I would like to take
this opportunity to share with you highlights of the exciting work and steps forward as a result of recent
legislation. The Department’s Division of Accountability, Partnerships and Assistance continues to
evolve with the passage of Chapter 311 of the Acts of 2008, An Act Relative to School District
Accountability, and Chapter 12 of the Acts of 2010, An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap. In this
letter I would like to provide an update on these changes.
An Act Relative to School District Accountability
In FY09 the legislature enacted Chapter 311 of the Acts of 2008, An Act Relative to School District
Accountability, which changed the statute on school and district accountability and assistance
(http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw08/sl080311.htm).That new legislation dissolved the Office of
Educational Quality and Accountability and the Education Management Audit Council and shifted the
responsibility for review of district performance to the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education. It further directed the Department to create separate offices of accountability and assistance
based on a deliberate clarification of roles and expectations and mandated the appointment of a senior
level administrator to oversee both areas. The legislation set out expectations for the Department to
conduct no fewer than 15 district reviews in the 2008-2009 school year as Department leaders worked to
revise and clarify school and district accountability and assistance structures.
The Department engaged regularly with the Advisory Council on School and District Accountability and
Assistance in preparing to present to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education recommendations
related to a new Framework for District Accountability and Assistance. That Framework defines the
Department’s approach to engaging with districts to improve student performance. District accountability
and Department assistance and intervention must be closely linked in order to produce sustainable
improvement, and this framing/guiding document defines those linkages.
Four key principles have guided the development of the Framework (see diagram at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/framework/diagram.pdf and Attachment A):
1. The district is the entry point for the Department’s accountability and assistance work; the focus of
state assistance will be on building district capacity to support and guide improvement efforts in
individual schools; therefore, a district’s placement in one of the Framework’s five accountability levels
is determined by the designation of its lowest performing school.
2. A strong accountability system will not, by itself, result in continued improvement. A parallel system
of assistance and intervention is necessary to secure continued, strong improvement.
3. Levels of accountability and intensity of assistance and intervention need to match the severity and
duration of identified problems.
4. The number of districts identified for Levels 4 and 5 are based on statute, regulations and ESE capacity
to provide appropriate levels of assistance. Placement at Levels 3, 4 and 5 is informed by federal No
Child Left Behind designations, but is ultimately determined by Massachusetts statutory requirements and
evidence gathered by DESE.
The Framework defines the roles and expectations of the district and the Department based on the
performance of the district’s schools. Every district in the Commonwealth is represented in one of five
“levels”: Districts requiring the least state intervention are in Level 1 while districts requiring the most
intervention are in Level 4 and could potentially be placed in Level 5. At each level, the Framework
distinguishes the Department’s role with respect to “accountability” and “assistance and intervention” as
well as districts’ responsibilities.
The Department provides a range of assistance to districts based on their Framework level. Resources
include the results of a Department-generated Annual District Data Review that reports on quantitative
indicators; online resources and self-assessment tools for district and school improvement that are aligned
with the Department’s District Standards and Conditions for School Effectiveness; and access to targeted
technical assistance through Department representatives and consultants.
Late last spring the Department completed the last of the district reviews required by law for 2009-2010.
The review reports are posted on the Department’s website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/review/district/. Reviews of 22 districts are underway for 2010-2011. They
include reviews of Level 3 and 4 districts. Already completed are reviews of several districts with schools
where performance of English Language Learners suggests there is evidence of district and school
promising practices; these practices will be identified and documented for the purpose of dissemination.
A summary report will be available by spring 2011.
An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap
Chapter 12 of the Acts of 2010, An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap, was signed into law on January
18, 2010 and took effect immediately. Its purpose is to foster education innovation to turn around
underperforming schools. Among other things, the new law makes sweeping changes to the statutes on
underperforming schools and school districts (Mass. General Laws chapter 69, sections 1J and 1K).
The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (Board) approved revisions to Regulations on
Underperforming Schools and School Districts, 603 CMR 2.00, to carry out the purpose and intent of the
newly amended statutes and advance the new system of accountability and assistance for schools and
districts. The Regulations on Accountability and Assistance for School Districts and Schools replaced
regulations which were last updated in 2006.
One section of these new regulations, concerning placement of schools in Level 4 (“underperforming
schools”), was released for review and public comment on January 26, 2010. (See
http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr2.html.) The Board invited public comment on the full
proposed regulations through April 9, 2010. Following review of comments and after making revisions,
the Board took a final vote to pass the Regulations on Accountability and Assistance for School Districts
and Schools at its regular meeting on April 27, 2010.
Conclusion
The suite of tools that this legislation created is already paying dividends. I identified the first 35 Level 4
(underperforming) schools almost a year ago, triggering the development of turnaround plans by the nine
districts in which the 35 schools reside. The legislation provided DESE and the nine districts with the
leverage to insist on plans that hold the promise of remedying the weak results for students in the 35
schools. DESE has developed protocols for monitoring implementation and impact of the plans. In short,
the Act is already promoting a sense of urgency and constructive practices to propel better student
outcomes.
I am looking forward to continuing our challenging work to close achievement gaps. The Department and
school districts have new tools to accomplish this important work. I thank you for your hard work and
deliberations on behalf of the students of the Commonwealth. I also encourage you to support adequate
funding for this work, as our improvement efforts require not only dedication and thoughtful preparation,
but also fiscal support for turnaround interventions in the districts and schools.
If you would like to discuss this report in greater detail or have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ........................................................................................................................ 3
Federal School Turnaround Grants ............................................................................. 4
I. State System for Identification of Level 4 Schools/Districts .................................. 6
Accountability Status under the federal No Child Left Behind law ............................... 6
Level 4 Schools and Districts ....................................................................................... 7
II. Targeted Assistance and Intervention in Level 4 Schools .................................... 8
Reviewing Progress of Implementation ....................................................................... 9
Instructional Leadership Training and Support ............................................................ 9
III. Former Chronically Underperforming Schools, (Level 4) ................................... 12
Former Commonwealth Pilot Schools ....................................................................... 15
IV. Intervention in Underperforming (Level 4) Districts ........................................... 17
Level 4 Districts ......................................................................................................... 17
V. Identification and Recognition of Schools Showing Significant Improvement . 20
Title I Academic Achievement Funding for Commendation Schools (to Take the Place
of Recognition to Commonwealth Compass Schools) ............................................... 20
VI. Intervention and Targeted Assistance Initiatives................................................ 22
Regional System of Support ...................................................................................... 22
VII. Update on Accountability Initiatives ................................................................... 24
Internal Capacity Building .......................................................................................... 24
System Redesign ...................................................................................................... 25
District Reviews ......................................................................................................... 26
Charter School Reviews ............................................................................................ 27
Accountability Data .................................................................................................... 27
VIII. Budget .................................................................................................................. 28
IX. Appendix ................................................................................................................ 29
Attachment A - Accountability and Assistance Framework ........................................ 30
Attachment B - Level 4 Schools................................................................................. 31
Attachment C - Summary of Key Level 4 Schools Network (L4N) Activities, March
through December 2010 ............................................................................................ 32
Attachment D - Measurable Annual Goals Guidance for Level 4 Schools ................. 35
Attachment E - 2010 Commendation Schools – Summary (09.09.10) ...................... 36
Attachment F - Title I Commendation Schools in Commissioner’s Districts............... 37
Attachment G - Sample Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) District Report for
Somerville and Sample Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) School Report for
Argenziano School in Somerville ............................................................................... 38
Introduction
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education respectfully submits this Report to the
Legislature on Intervention and Targeted Assistance Efforts pursuant to Chapter 131 of the Acts
of 2010, line item 7061-9408:
“For targeted intervention to schools and districts at risk of or determined to be
underperforming under sections 1J and 1K of chapter 69 of the General Laws, schools and
districts which have been placed in the accountability status of identified for improvement,
corrective action or restructuring pursuant to departmental regulations, or which have been
designated commonwealth priority schools or commonwealth pilot schools pursuant to said
regulations; provided, that no money shall be expended in any school or district that fails to file
a comprehensive district plan pursuant to the provisions of section 1I of said chapter 69;
provided further, that the department shall only approve reform plans with proven, replicable
results in improving student performance; provided further, that in carrying out the provisions of
this item, the department may contract with school support specialists, turnaround partners and
such other external assistance as is needed in the expert opinion of the commissioner, to
successfully turn around failing school and district performance; provided further, that no funds
shall be expended on targeted intervention unless the department shall have approved, as part of
the comprehensive district improvement plan, a professional development plan which addresses
the needs of the district as determined by the department; provided further, that eligible
professional development activities for purposes of this item shall include, but not be limited to:
professional development among teachers of the same grade levels and teachers of the same
subject matter across grade levels, professional development focused on improving the teacher’s
content knowledge in the field or subject area in which the teacher is practicing, professional
development which provides teachers with research based strategies for increasing student
success, professional development teaching the principles of data driven instruction and funding
which helps provide common planning time for teachers within a school and within the school
district; provided further, that preference in the awarding of such funds shall be given to
professional development in math and English content skills; provided further, that funds from
any targeted intervention grant may be used to partially offset the cost of said professional
development and common planning time; provided further, that funds may be expended for the
purchase of instructional materials pursuant to section 57 of chapter 15 of the General Laws;
provided further, that no funds shall be expended on instructional materials except where the
purchase of such materials is part of a comprehensive plan to align the school or district
curriculum with the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks; provided further, that preference in
distributing funds shall be made for proposals which coordinate reform efforts within all schools
of a district in order to prevent conflicts between multiple reforms and interventions among the
schools; provided further, that funds may be expended for the commonwealth pilot school
initiative established by the board in November 2006; provided further, that the department shall
issue a report not later than February 2, 2011, and annually thereafter, describing and
analyzing all intervention and targeted assistance efforts funded by this item; provided further,
that such report shall include, but not be limited to: the number of school and school districts
eligible to receive such assistance, the number of students attending school in said districts, the
nature and type of intervention activities funded through this item, by school and school district,
the number of teachers in professional development funded in part through this item, the number
of districts with curricula or professional development systems aligned with the Massachusetts
curriculum frameworks and the number that are undertaking that effort with grants funded by
1
this item, the number of outside vendors with whom the department has contracted to provide
intervention and turnaround services, the amount each vendor has received and the results
obtained in each instance, the number of students who have passed the MCAS assessment and
obtained a competency determination through these programs before, and during, the period of
intervention and turnaround and any other data relative to the successes achieved or challenges
faced by the effort to turn around schools, along with any legislative or budgetary
recommendations for improving the initiative and increasing the success of all intervention
efforts; provided further, that said report shall include an analysis of the number of districts with
curriculum plans not aligned to the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks, along with any
legislative and regulatory recommendations to address the issue; provided further, that the
report shall be provided to the secretary of administration and finance, the senate president, the
speaker of the house, the chairs of the house and senate ways and means committees and the
house and senate chairs of the joint committee on education… .”
2
Overview
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Division for
Accountability, Partnerships and Assistance maintains and manages the state’s School and
District Accountability System (http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/framework/framework.doc and
Attachment A), which is based on a framework of differing levels of intervention and support for
districts and their schools. Results from the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
(MCAS) are used to identify public schools and districts that are likely to require state
intervention in order to ensure improvements in student performance, and to identify schools
with exemplary performance and improvement.
Since the inception of the Education Reform Act 18 years ago, the Department’s work with low
performing schools and districts has informed our thinking about the time, support and effort it
takes on the part of a school, a district and the state agency to make progress. This prompted us
to reexamine our state policies and practices to understand how our actions were supporting
improvement. Based on that reexamination of efforts and results, we developed new regulations
to clarify a system of accountability and associated levels of support for districts with differing
levels of need. Aiming at strengthening capacity at the district/central office level, our work now
uses a more collaborative approach with LEA leadership. To date, feedback from district leaders
on this new approach indicates that we have increased the level of coherence and transparency
with which we work in order to meet the goal of all students in all schools moving to and beyond
proficiency.
On January 18, 2010, Governor Patrick and Senate and House leaders enacted landmark
education reform legislation to intervene in Level 4 schools, or schools that are low performing
on the MCAS over a 4-year period in both English language arts and mathematics and not
showing signs of substantial improvement over that time. Specifically, the Level 4 criteria relate
to 4-year trends in ELA and mathematics MCAS scores: absolute achievement over 4 years
(Composite Performance Index [CPI]) and the percentage of students scoring at the
Warning/Failing level on MCAS; annual student growth percentiles for each year available; and
improvement trends over 4 years (changes in CPI).
With passage of An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr2.html) and significant federal funding to target
struggling schools, Massachusetts has an unprecedented opportunity to turn around the
Commonwealth’s lowest performing schools. The Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education has introduced a process to support 9 districts to intervene successfully in 35 Level 4
Schools and ensure that the more than 18,924 students those schools serve graduate ready for
college and career success. The following describes the new law and federal grant, and explains
how these schools were identified and what it means for the students in them.
 A total of 35 Level 4 Schools
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/framework/level4/L4Schools.doc and Attachment B) have
been targeted for aggressive intervention through turnaround and redesign plans
developed in collaboration with the superintendent, the school committee, the local
teachers’ union, administrators, teachers, community representatives and parents. The
plans are implemented by the district superintendent with support and assistance from the
Commissioner.
3


Intervention powers include the ability to reassign or replace teachers and administrators
and dismiss those with a track record of poor performance, as well authority to reopen
and amend collective bargaining agreements. These changes are reflected in staterequired turnaround plans, as well as comprehensive redesign plans through which
schools have the potential to access significant federal grant dollars for implementation of
redesign initiatives. Some of these plans were submitted in summer 2010, while others
will arrive at the Department by January 28, 2011. All are vetted through a stringent
review process based on carefully defined criteria, detailed in a rubric and other
guidance. The review focuses in large part on the ability of districts to use their systems
of support to ensure that school improvements are sustainable.
Guidance documents, regular conference calls, webinars and mini-conferences/worksessions have been set up to network district leaders engaging in planning for
improvements to Level 4 schools. The Level 4 Network’s activities have been led by
ESE’s Deputy Commissioner Karla Baehr and a team of ESE representatives that meet
regularly at the Department to address district needs through the development of
guidance, resource sharing and liaison activities. (See Attachment C for key Network
activities to date.)
Federal School Turnaround Grants
In February 2010, the US Department of Education (USED) finalized regulations for the use of
competitive grants to intervene in each state’s lowest performing schools. Massachusetts has
been awarded $76 million over three years to provide competitive grants to districts.
 A district is eligible to apply for $500,000 or more per year for up to three years on
behalf of each of its Level 4 schools (or Federal Tier I and II schools).
 A district applying for a School Turnaround Grant must choose 1 of 4 prescribed
intervention models and demonstrate its capacity to implement that model effectively
over 3 years.
The Department worked with a wide range of stakeholders including superintendents, school
committee members, union representatives and state legislators to determine how to identify the
lowest performing schools that are showing the least improvement. Selection was based on 4
years of student achievement and trends in academic improvement. At its January 2010 meeting,
the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approved and released for public comment
regulations to guide the identification process. In February, the Board reviewed modifications
recommended by key stakeholders and voted on regulations to identify Level 4 schools at its
March 23, 2010 meeting.
These actions marked the beginning of a several-month process of work to engage stakeholders
in redesigning these 35 schools (20 of which are elementary schools; 8 of which are middle schools; 3
of which are PK/K-8 schools; and 4 of which are high schools) to promote rapid improvement in
learning for all students. Per the law, the superintendents and Commissioner must set rigorous
but realistic Measurable Annual Goals that each school must meet. (See Measurable Annual
Goals, or MAGs, guidance at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/framework/level4/MAG_Guidance.doc and Appendix D.) These
goals are to be tied to improvement strategies selected based on data analysis, are tied to solid
rationales for their selection and are supported by district systems.
4
Ultimately, it is the objective of both the districts and the agency that Level 4 schools be moved
out of status by meeting the following criteria:
a) Improve student achievement for 3 years for students overall and for each subgroup of
students, as shown by:

MCAS and student growth

Reduction in proficiency gap

(For high schools) higher graduation rate and a greater percentage of graduates enrolled
in higher education within one year of graduation
b) Demonstrate that the conditions are in place at the school level
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ucd/CSESelf-Assesment.doc) to sustain that improvement
c) Demonstrate that the conditions are in place at the district level
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/review/district/StandardsIndicators.doc) to sustain that
improvement
If, after 3 years, these schools are not improving rapidly, the Department will intervene to ensure
that all students achieve at high levels.
With clear authorities, stronger accountability and increased funding to support the work, we are
in the midst of a historic opportunity for Massachusetts students.
5
I. State System for Identification of Level 4 Schools/Districts
Accountability Status under the federal No Child Left Behind law
On an annual basis, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the
Department) issues Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for Massachusetts public
schools and school districts. The performance and improvement data for each school and district,
together with data on MCAS participation, student attendance and graduation rates, are compiled
and analyzed to determine whether students in the aggregate and in subgroups have made
adequate progress toward the achievement of state performance targets in English language arts
and mathematics. AYP determinations are used to assign each school an NCLB “accountability
status”. The category to which a school is assigned is based on its AYP determinations over
multiple years and determines the course of action a school, district and/or state is expected to
take to improve student performance. Accountability status categories include Identified for
Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring. Schools that make AYP in a subject for all
student groups for 2 or more consecutive years are assigned to the No Status category. A district
or school may be placed in an accountability status on the basis of the performance and
improvement profile of students in the aggregate or of one or more student subgroups over 2 or
more years in English language arts and/or mathematics.
In 2010, 1,725 schools received AYP determinations. Of the 1,725 schools receiving
determinations, 971 schools (56 percent) were identified for improvement, corrective action or
restructuring, as indicated in the table below.
SCHOOLS
Aggregate
Subgroups
Total
Identified for
Improvement
144
220
364
Corrective
Action
42
96
138
Restructuring
Total
245
224
469
431
540
971
Source: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2010/
In the fall of 2010, 389 districts received AYP determinations. Of the districts receiving
determinations, 123 were Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring, as
indicated in the table below. A total of 149 of the 389 districts operate a single school only. For
districts operating multiple schools, Massachusetts issues separate district-level adequate yearly
progress (AYP) determinations at the elementary, middle and high school grade spans. Under
this approach, districts are identified for improvement when they fail to make AYP in the same
subject area in all grade spans. Districts that operate only a single school receive AYP
determinations based on the results of all tested grades served by the school; only single-school
districts may be labeled for Restructuring.
DISTRICTS
Aggregate
Subgroups
Total
Identified for
Improvement
13
49
62
Corrective
Action
8
39
47
Restructuring
Total
4
10
14
25
98
123
Source: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2010/
6
Sample district and school AYP reports are found in Attachment G.
Lists of schools identified for improvement, corrective action and restructuring for 2010 can be
found at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/2010/.
Level 4 Schools and Districts
As described in the Overview of this report, Governor Patrick and Senate and House leaders
enacted landmark education reform legislation to intervene in underperforming (Level 4)
schools, or schools that are the state’s lowest performing based on an analysis of 4-year trends in
absolute achievement, student growth, and improvement as measured by MCAS. To identify
Level 4 schools, ESE used the following mathematics and English Language Arts MCAS results:
Composite Performance Index (CPI) and the percentage of students scoring at the
Warning/Failing level on MCAS over 4 years; annual student growth percentile for the years
available; and improvement as measured by the change in CPI over 4 years.
Taken together, the 35 Level 4 schools are in 9 districts and serve 18,924 students. Of those
schools, 20 are elementary schools; 8 are middle schools; 3 are PK/K-8 schools; and 4 are high
schools.
A district with a Level 4 school is considered a Level 4 district. Districts may also enter Level 4
when the Commissioner designates the district as such based on district accountability review
findings. See Section IV for a detailed description of the districts (Holyoke, Gill-Montague,
Randolph and Southbridge) that have been designated Level 4 as the result of district
accountability reviews.
7
II. Targeted Assistance and Intervention in Level 4 Schools
The Commissioner’s Districts are believed to be large enough to sustain an infrastructure to
manage, oversee, and support the improvement of standards-based teaching and learning for all
students for whom they are responsible. Since 2007-2008, the Office of Urban and
Commissioner’s District (UDA) has been charged with providing customized support to the
Commissioner’s Districts to enhance their capacity to support high-need schools (Level 4
schools), in addition to all other schools in the district. (See http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ucd/
for information on some of the work of the unit.) To this end, UDA assistance, activities, tools
and resources (http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ucd/ToolsOverview.doc) are purposefully designed
to complement and strengthen district capacity and systems to guide and monitor school
improvement.
UDA liaisons assigned to the Commissioner’s Districts provided assistance to district leaders as
those leaders learned about new regulations, as they became accustomed to the state’s new
Framework for Accountability and Assistance, as they supported their Level 4 schools and all
schools within their districts and as they strengthened district systems as a means of ensuring
ongoing support and sustainable improvement/progress. Key methods for delivering this
assistance to the Commissioner’s Districts included:
1. Memoranda of Understanding – Each year UDA has been entering into an agreement
with each Commissioner’s District. This agreement, or MOU, outlines resources and
assistance to be provided in order to strengthen district capacity to lead and monitor
improvement. Focused attention is paid to strengthening those systems and structures that
will accelerate the implementation of strategies in the district improvement plan that are
aimed at improving outcomes, particularly at low performing schools including those at
Level 4. The 2010-2011 MOU had a particular focus on identifying promising practices
at specific sites (either Commendation Schools [see list of Title I Commendation Schools
in the Commissioner’s Districts at
http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants11/rfp/doc/316c_att_c.doc] or districtidentified sites) and developing plans to disseminate those practices to other schools that
could most benefit from them—all in service of building better systems for taking what
has been working effectively and increasing its impact through effective dissemination.
While state funding historically supported a significant portion of the MOUs, the most
recent agreements were funded exclusively with federal dollars. This made the new
focus—disseminating promising practice—necessary, as Academic Achievement
(federal) funds needed to be accessed.
2. Assistance Liaisons – A dedicated staff member is assigned to each Commissioner’s
District to:
 Serve as a central Department point of contact for the district;
 Help districts navigate the state’s new system of accountability and assistance,
and ensure that districts access supports for Level 4 school turnaround/redesign
planning;
 Facilitate the alignment and delivery of agency resources and assistance in
support of the strategies and action steps outlined in the district’s improvement
plan;
8
 Develop and model the use of activities, processes and tools for assessing school
and district assets and needs to inform the improvement planning process;
 Support districts by providing information as they apply for state and federal
school improvement grants that are focused on building district systems and
structures to support school improvement;
 Assist districts in establishing and monitoring benchmarks toward achieving
outcomes in district and school improvement plans;
 Identify, introduce and coordinate services of external partners/consultants; and
 Conduct cross-district networking opportunities for the districts to support the
sharing of practices and collaborative problem solving.
3. Urban Superintendents Network (USN) – The USN meets monthly and consists of
superintendents from the Commissioner’s Districts and smaller urban districts. Agendas
focus on:
 Briefing superintendents on developing or future initiatives, policy, legislation
and regulations;
 Soliciting superintendent input and feedback on developing Department work;
 Engaging in collaborative problem solving relative to common concerns.
Reviewing Progress of Implementation
The Center for Targeted Assistance and UDA commissioned a study through UMass Donahue
Institute to gauge the effectiveness of UDA’s work over time—work that in 2009-2010 had
aimed to become more collaborative and focused on district systems. Findings from the study
indicated that the collaborative approach was considered by superintendents and other district
leaders to be beneficial in their capacity-building, systems-building and school-support efforts.
Through collaborative (district-school-agency) identification of strengths and needs, determined
through the UDA liaisons’ frequent participation in key district meetings and other work
sessions, the liaisons were able to reach out to other Department staff and consultants to provide
support and to bolster the work of the central office leadership teams in the districts. Department
staff providing this support included experts in intervention, leadership, reading, mathematics,
science, English language learners and more. Support consisted of:
 Providing guidance, training and specific data collection tools focused on
instructional leadership, instruction and teaching practices and teacher
collaboration;
 Delivering targeted professional development in support of improvement
strategies; and
 Collaborating with school and district leaders to identify resources and strategies
to address areas of concern.
Instructional Leadership Training and Support
Instructional Leadership Training
Since 2005, the Department has been in partnership with the National Institute for School
Leadership (NISL), a subsidiary of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE),
to provide high-quality training and support for selected Massachusetts leaders in the tenets of
instructional leadership. This effort began with the participation of 2 specific cohorts of
educators: the first was a group of 55 state-selected principals, superintendents and consultants
9
working in urban districts. This group completed the 18-month training program, and members
were certified as NISL trainers.
To date, NISL has served 76 school districts, trained 1200 leaders in 40 cohorts, and impacted
404,977 students throughout the Commonwealth. The 2-year NISL Executive Development for
School Leadership curriculum focuses on:
 training in standards-based instructional systems aligned by the Department and NISL
staff with the Massachusetts state frameworks;
 training in data analysis skills related to student achievement data;
 building capacity to take learning theory into practice by providing skills and
knowledge to enable principals to be instructional leaders in literacy, math and
science in their own schools; and
 training principals in distributed leadership strategies that will assist in developing the
professional capacity of school staff.
In 2009, research results by the Meristem Group, LLC suggested that there was a slight increase
in student achievement (MCAS scores) of schools with NISL-trained leadership as compared to
like-demographics schools with non-NISL-trained leadership, and the leadership time focused on
instructional practice in these “NISL schools” increased.
In 2010, research results by a study commissioned by Old Dominion University and Johns
Hopkins University showed statistically significant impact on MCAS math scores in
Massachusetts schools led by NISL-trained principals when compared to similar schools led by
non-NISL trained principals. The Department is looking forward to future research on the impact
of the NISL training program on student achievement.
During the 2010-2011 school year, NISL launched 7 cohorts through the newly established
District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs). A framework to support a series of networks
for district leaders based in the 6 DSAC regions on instructional leadership with NISL as the
common foundation is currently in development. Simultaneously, NISL training is continuing in
4 of the state’s largest urban districts. In total, NISL training is being delivered to approximately
375 educational leaders in Massachusetts this school year, 2010-2011.
The Department is pleased to be able to expand the NISL program beyond high-needs districts
with the award of Race to the Top funding. This funding source will now allow NISL to be made
available to the 275 eligible districts and charter schools across the Commonwealth over the next
4 years, further supporting high-quality instructional leadership practices that lead to increased
academic achievement in the majority of Massachusetts’ districts and schools.
More information about NISL is available at http://www.nisl.net.
Instructional Leadership Support
With 1200 leaders trained to date, principals and superintendents have reported the need for
support when implementing the training in their schools and districts. The Commonwealth
Coaching Program was developed through a pilot led by the Education Leadership Alliance. The
group funded a 2-year initiative that provided every superintendent and principal in 5 adjacent
districts in Northern Worcester County (Leominster, Fitchburg, Ashburnham-Westminster,
Athol-Royalston and Winchendon) with a NISL-trained coach. Leadership coaching is designed
10
to build the capacity of school and district leaders to guide and direct large scale, sustained
improvement of teaching and learning and the conditions in which they occur by:
 Supporting school principals and other district-level administrators to more effectively
implement the instructional leadership concepts presented under the NISL Training
Program;
 Facilitating the creation of strong action plans by superintendents and school principals to
promote their own leadership development and improve their schools and districts;
 Providing a context that encourages superintendents and school principals to reflect on
and improve their own leadership practices; and
 Encouraging the alignment of district and school improvement goals through the
facilitation of high-performing district leadership teams consisting of, but not limited to,
the superintendent, district leaders and principals.
11
III. Former Chronically Underperforming Schools, (Level 4)
In the past, when a school failed to demonstrate significant improvement in student performance
within 2 years of acceptance of a remedial plan by the Board, the Board had the authority to
declare the school chronically underperforming. Over time, 3 schools had been identified as
chronically underperforming: 2 schools in Fall River and 1 in Holyoke. While the Holyoke site,
Peck, closed its doors in 2008, Fall River’s chronically underperforming schools (CUP),
Matthew Kuss and Henry Lord Middle Schools, remained in that status up to the introduction of
the state’s new accountability system. As the list of Level 4 schools was compiled based on data
and careful review, both of those Fall River schools, Kuss and Lord, were placed in Level 4.
School
Matthew Kuss Middle School
Henry Lord Middle School
William Peck Middle School
District
Fall River
Fall River
Holyoke
Date of (CUP) Determination
October 2004
September 2005
October 2005
Current Status/Level
Level 4
Level 4
Closed in 2008
Although Kuss and Lord have made notable improvements and gains in terms of student
achievement, neither had made AYP across the board in the aggregate and for all reportable
subgroups at the time when the Level 4 list of schools was developed. Moreover, because district
systems of support in Fall River are currently a focus of improvement efforts—that is, the district
is operating in accordance with a Board-approved and state-monitored Recovery Plan—there
was not confidence that the gains that had been made by the schools would be sustainable
without ESE support and oversight.
Matthew Kuss Middle School – Fall River
The Kuss Middle School was initially identified as underperforming in 2000 and was determined
to be chronically underperforming by the Board in 2004. The Department recruited an
experienced principal who was hired by the district and began her leadership work at the Kuss
Middle School in the 2005-2006 school year. At the same time, the Department initiated the
services of America’s Choice as the school’s turnaround partner, and implementation of the
school reform model began. Since that time, the school has applied for and has been awarded
Expanded Learning Time funding ($728K in FY07, $728K in FY08, $845K in FY09, $806K in
FY10, and $744,150 in FY11), has received annual school improvement grants from the Center
for Targeted Assistance (between $160,310 and $216,513 each year between FY06 and FY10),
has had leadership support through salary differential funding (more than $7K each year, FY07FY09) and principal performance bonuses (between $7.5K and $12.5K each year, FY07-FY10)
and has had access to funding for turnaround planning (Early Implementation funding [$55K],
Bridge Funding [$129,150]).
Kuss’s performance has varied from year to year. In 2007, the Kuss Middle School made AYP in
both ELA and mathematics for all students in the aggregate (but not for all reportable
subgroups), but was unable to sustain that aggregate performance in the next year. In 2008, the
Kuss Middle School did not make AYP in either ELA or mathematics for students in the
aggregate or for subgroups. In 2009, however, the school made AYP in ELA and math in the
aggregate. Similarly, in 2010, aggregate achievement of AYP was realized, but the school did
not make adequate yearly progress for all subgroups.
12
Matthew Kuss Middle School—Adequate Yearly Progress History
ELA
MATH
All Subgroups
NCLB
Accountability
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Status
No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Corrective Action No No Yes Yes No No No No Subgroups
Aggregate
No
No
No
No
Yes No
All Subgroups
No
No
No
No
No
Aggregate
No
Yes Yes Restructuring Year
No No 2 - Subgroups
Henry Lord Middle School – Fall River
Henry Lord Middle School was identified as underperforming in 2002 and determined to be
chronically underperforming by the Board in 2005. The district placed an interim principal in the
school for the 2005-2006 school year. The Department recruited an experienced principal who
was hired by the district and began her leadership work at the Lord Middle School in the 20062007 school year. At the same time, the Department initiated the services of America’s Choice as
the school’s turnaround partner, and implementation of the school reform model began.
In 2007-2008, under the new principal’s leadership, the Lord Middle School underwent
significant change. The establishment and training of school-based data teams informed revision
of the School Improvement Plan and implementation of new improvement initiatives. An
aggressive professional development plan was created, and training was delivered to teachers
during the school day, after school and on Saturdays. This training focused on changing
instructional practice in literacy and mathematics and was grounded in the America’s Choice
workshop model.
Like Kuss, Henry Lord has been provided yearly school improvement funding (between
$165,593 and $205,448 each year from FY06-FY10), has received bonuses and differential
compensation (between $7,210 and $12,390 each year from FY07-FY10) and performance
bonuses (from $5,625 to $12.5K each year from FY07-FY10) for the school leader, who is no
longer at the site, and has had access to Early Implementation ($70K) and Bridge Funding
($129,150) for Level 4 planning and implementation.
In 2008, Henry Lord made AYP in mathematics for students in the aggregate and for subgroups,
but did not make AYP in ELA. Based on the 2009 MCAS test administration, Henry Lord
Middle School did not make AYP in the aggregate or for any reportable subgroups. In 2010,
aggregate achievement of AYP was realized in both ELA and math, but the school did not make
AYP for all of its reportable subgroups.
Henry Lord Middle School—Adequate Yearly Progress History
ELA
MATH
2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
All Subgroups No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Aggregate
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
All Subgroups No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Aggregate
NCLB
Accountability
Status
Restructuring Year
2
Restructuring Year
2 - Subgroups
13
Fall River FY10 Update
The district of Fall River has had a long history of needing to improve student achievement and
make more significant progress. In the fall of 2008, the district faced a serious budget shortfall,
and a period of contentious relations across the superintendent, the school committee and
municipal leaders led to the then-superintendent’s resignation. In January 2009, Mayor Robert
Correia and Commissioner Chester agreed that the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education should send a review team to the district to evaluate the effectiveness of district
leadership and the district’s resource management capacity. The review team’s final report is
available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/review/district/reports/evaluation/08_0095.pdf.
District leaders addressed in a Recovery Plan for the Commissioner’s review and approval the
following areas of weakness identified in the report: school committee governance and strategic
implementation of improvements to teaching and learning, human resource management and
financial management. The Recovery Plan establishes strategies, action steps, benchmarks and
timelines for needed improvement in district systems and structures across the areas just noted.
In August of 2009, the Commissioner approved Fall River’s Recovery Plan with the stipulation
that the district revise the plan to meet 9 conditions outlined by the Commissioner in an August
2009 memo to the superintendent.
The Department has worked collaboratively with district leadership to develop yearly addenda
(fall 2009 and fall 2010) to the Recovery Plan that specify needed Department assistance to
support implementation of the Plan through both financial and direct technical assistance
activities. Key assistance has been provided through a dedicated team of 2 consultants, both
former superintendents. One consultant focuses on strengthening Finance/Budget and HR
systems within the district, in addition to providing superintendent mentoring. The other
consultant works regularly on school committee/district relations and processes. In addition, a
Department liaison is assigned to the district for the purpose of accessing and providing support.
In 2009, this team was joined by a third consultant who focused on curricular matters.
To stay apprised of the work of the district in implementing its Recovery Plan, a state-assigned
monitor is charged with semi-annual reporting of progress to the Accountability Office and
Commissioner at the Department. To date, Recovery Plan monitoring has resulted in mid-course
corrections and acceleration of some of the work of district improvement. Despite this, the
district continues to be in the process of building district systems to support school improvement
and success. Turnover of an Assistant Superintendent, a central-office School Improvement
leader, and a Level 4 Principal has occurred in the district, along with the hiring of an interim
financial manager and an HR Director. This has had an impact on some of the systems-building
work of the district.
14
Former Commonwealth Pilot Schools
Phasing Out of the Commonwealth Pilot School Model
The Commonwealth Pilot Schools Initiative introduced in December 2006 represented a
substantive reform to schools struggling with persistently low student achievement, and was
patterned on a model in place in the Boston Public Schools. Program guidelines specified that
Commonwealth Pilot Schools be granted autonomy in 5 operational areas: (1) staffing and
hiring, (2) school schedule and calendar, (3) curriculum and assessment, (4) governance, and (5)
budget. Implementation of those autonomies required that each participating district develop a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with its local teachers’ union, exempting proposed
Commonwealth Pilot Schools from union contract work rules while defining conditions under
which school-level work rules could be established.
During the 2008-2009 school year, 5 schools implemented the model until a school withdrew
based on its superintendent’s assessment of progress under the model. In 2009-2010, with 4
remaining schools participating in the initiative, federal school improvement grant funds
supported efforts outlined in the original design plans. Grant funds were used for activities in a
broad range of categories including the development of professional learning communities,
strengthening of instructional practices, refining assessment systems (interim and formative),
providing non-academic student support services and academic interventions and supports and
continuing the development of school organization and culture.
Although perceptions of schools’ capacity to improve student learning were generally positive,
the initiative did not appear to have had a substantial impact on school-level MCAS
achievement. Accountability protocols associated with design plan implementation were not
clearly articulated, and the initiative did not have a specified framework of short-term
(implementation) and mid-term (culture and practice) performance benchmarks that anchor
assessment of progress toward improvement. Without these benchmarks, AYP was perceived as
the de facto success criterion, which may have obscured important intermediate
accomplishments.
At the time that the viability of the Commonwealth Pilot School model was being reassessed, the
2010 Act Relative to the Achievement Gap called for new approaches to innovation, district and
school accountability and Department-provided targeted assistance. At the close of the 20092010 school year, Commonwealth Pilot Schools were phased out, and the schools that had been
part of the initiative became Level 3 or Level 4 schools, with the expectations noted below:
15
Co-Pilots identified as Level 4 Schools
Co-Pilots identified as Level 3 Schools
Under the new state statute, the district and
school were required to develop Turnaround
Plans and became eligible to apply for federal
Redesign funds.
As of July 1, 2010, there no longer were state
requirements on the district to continue the Co-Pilot
design or intervention at these schools. The district and
schools were to consider continuing all or some of the
elements of the Co-Pilot design model and negotiate
locally those elements of the model that required
additional autonomy or authorities at the school.
Each district with a former Co-Pilot school was to determine the appropriate design and intervention
for that school going forward;
Design could include elements and components of the original Co-Pilot design plan or new design
features as determined at the local level;
Board- and Department-approved Co-Pilot design plans ceased to be in effect on June 30, 2010; and
The schools were no longer to be deemed Commonwealth Pilot schools, starting June 30, 2010.
16
IV. Intervention in Underperforming (Level 4) Districts
In July 2008, new legislation called for the Department to assume responsibility for the review of
district performance. The law also directed the creation of separate offices of accountability and
assistance within the Department and stipulated that a senior level administrative position be
created to provide direct leadership oversight and coordination between these offices. Deputy
Commissioner Karla Baehr currently leads the Division for Accountability, Partnerships and
Assistance has been driving major restructuring of the state’s model for accountability and
assistance, with Level 4 districts being a key focus of both accountability and assistance efforts.
Level 4 Districts
In 2010, in addition to the districts that became Level 4 based on the fact that they had one or
more Level 4 schools, a total of 4 additional Massachusetts school districts entered Level 4
status, having undergone reviews and having been declared underperforming by the Board in
prior years. The chart below lists those districts. In each case, the Department has continued to
provide support.
District
Holyoke
Southbridge
Date of Determination
November 2003
Gill-Montague
June 2007
Randolph
November 2007
September 2004
Holyoke
Since 2004, Holyoke has utilized the services of the America’s Choice program as the district
turnaround partner. Since the district’s design of a comprehensive intervention plan, the
Department has supported plan implementation. Over time, the turnaround plan has guided a
range of improvement efforts at both district and school levels. These efforts have included:
NISL Leadership training; developing systems to collect, manage and analyze data; defining a
new district vision for more rigorous expectations of students, staff, parents and community;
literacy and mathematics training for teachers; and establishing, training and deploying coaches
in all of the district’s schools.
In 2008, the Department contracted with the Meristem Group to expand on an earlier evaluation
done by Meristem and to examine more deeply the artifacts of improvement in Holyoke. In brief,
the report noted a distinct shift in the fourth year of the district intervention work, signaling a
major focus on developing capacity to meet the needs of ELL students in all major focus areas:
curriculum development, staff development, targeted intervention programs for students,
leadership development and district capacity-building. The 2008-2009 school year also marked a
significant transition in leadership of the district’s improvement work, with America’s Choice
shifting responsibility for driving the various improvement projects to district personnel. The
superintendent, central office personnel and building principals were expected to use and build
on newly developed skills and capacities to become instructional leaders and decision-makers.
17
In 2010, the district did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for students in the aggregate
or for subgroups in either ELA or mathematics, resulting in an NCLB status of Corrective Action
for the district for both core content areas, with a Performance Rating of Low for ELA and Very
Low for mathematics. This failure to make AYP followed similar performance in 2009, in
which adequate progress was not achieved.
Gill-Montague
After being declared underperforming in June 2007, Gill-Montague leaders received Board
approval of their proposed turnaround plan, and improvement work began. The Department has
provided the district with ongoing support in a number of areas: for example, stabilizing
leadership, providing grant funds to support mathematics content training for teachers in the
district, supporting curriculum mapping work, and enhancing technology.
Gill-Montague made AYP in 2010 for students in the aggregate and for subgroups in both ELA
and mathematics, following similar achievement of adequate progress from 2006 through 2009.
This leaves the district with no NCLB status, but continued need for support in ensuring that its
minimal infrastructure (small regional school district with relatively few schools, lean central
office, low resources) does not hinder sustained improvement.
Southbridge
Since the Board’s declaration of Southbridge as an underperforming district in November 2007,
the Department has provided both assistance and oversight to the Southbridge Public School
district. Support through targeted assistance grants has built the district’s capacity to lead
curriculum development and implementation of standards-based teaching and learning.
Communication across school officials, the local school committee and municipal leaders has
improved over time, supported by a broad-based and collaborative strategic planning initiative.
The Department has supported building the district’s capacity to use data to drive improvement
decisions. Nevertheless, the superintendent who was in place for most of this capacity-building
work retired, and leadership change at several of the district’s schools also took place, forcing
adjustments in the district and its school sites to have had to be made.
Following 2009, in which the district made AYP for students in the aggregate and for all
reportable subgroups in both ELA and mathematics, Southbridge’s performance declined in
2010. The district made AYP in the aggregate for ELA, but not for all subgroups. Southbridge
failed to make AYP in math.
Randolph
Since the Board’s approval of Randolph’s turnaround plan in May 2008, the district has been
working to implement the range of initiatives set out in that plan. Key priority areas include:
developing and implementing standards-based curricula and instructional practices in all content
areas, with particular attention to mathematics; improving performance of all students with
disabilities; and raising the community’s confidence and trust in the quality of education
provided to all students by designating and implementing opportunities that create new
conditions for positive collaboration.
The Department has assigned a District Support Team to work with municipal and school leaders
in their efforts to address the district’s priority improvement needs. The team includes the former
Malden Public Schools superintendent who engages regularly with Randolph leaders.
18
In 2010, Randolph did not make AYP in the aggregate or for subgroups in ELA. It made AYP in
the aggregate for mathematics, but not for all reportable subgroups. This follows 2009
performance in which the district did not make AYP for students in the aggregate in ELA, but
did make AYP for subgroups. In mathematics in 2009, the district made AYP for both the
aggregate and reportable subgroups.
General Support to Level 4 Districts
While the Level 4 districts above have been provided customized supports in the form of
consultancies and partnerships, Department-funded teams to assist with strengthening districtcommunity relationships and grant funding, all of these districts also have access to professional
development offerings and other supports through the District and School Assistance Centers
which give these districts priority to join in regional sessions at no cost to the district. They also
will be receiving Department-led assistance with implementation support as 2011 unfolds.
19
V. Identification and Recognition of Schools Showing
Significant Improvement
Title I Academic Achievement Funding for Commendation Schools (to
Take the Place of Recognition to Commonwealth Compass Schools)
The Department notes the importance of using the School and District Accountability System to
identify not only those schools with significant need, but also those that show significant
improvement in their students’ performance in English language arts and mathematics. Until
February 2007, schools showing marked improvement based on performance and improvement
criteria were designated Commonwealth Compass Schools. In addition to special recognition at a
public event at the Great Hall of the State House, Compass Schools received a grant to support
further improvement. Since the program began in 2001, 95 public elementary, middle and high
schools from across the state were designated as Commonwealth Compass Schools.
Priorities for shrinking state funds caused this important program—designed to ensure some
symmetry in the accountability system—to go dormant: The 9408 line could no support the
Compass Schools program, and the last cohort of Compass Schools was identified and honored
in spring 2007. However in fall of 2010, the Department launched a new designation of
Commendation School to honor schools statewide that had shown notable trends in achievement
and improvement for the 2 prior years. Representatives from the Department’s School
Improvement Grants and Title I offices worked with the former Compass School administrator to
develop the criteria to identify the Commendation Schools, determining that schools must meet
at least 1 of the criteria noted below:
1. Schools Commended for Narrowing Proficiency Gaps: Schools that substantially
narrowed proficiency gaps for low income, limited English proficient and special
education students over a 2-year period.
2. Schools Commended for High Growth: Schools that demonstrated median growth of 60
or higher for 2 consecutive years.
3. Schools Commended for Exiting NCLB Accountability Status: Schools that exited their
NCLB accountability status based on current year AYP determinations.
A total of 188 schools in 118 districts received a Commendation School designation. All schools
were honored with special notations about what they were commended for on their School
Profiles pages on the Department’s website. (See Attachment E for more detail on the criteria,
and Attachment F for a list of Commendation schools.)
Federal Title I regulations permitted the state to set aside Academic Achievement funding to
honor improvement in schools and disseminate “promising practices” to other schools. Any
school receiving Title I services and showing “above average” improvement was eligible under
the federal guidelines to receive Academic Achievement funding. The Center for Targeted
Assistance used these funds to acknowledge those Commendation Schools that are in the 10
Commissioner’s districts and also designated as Title I (a total of 27 schools) and to promote the
sharing of effective practices with other high-need schools in the district (Level 4 Title I sites and
other high-need Title I schools). This awarding of Academic Achievement funds was tied in fall
2010 to the Urban District Assistance Office’s Memoranda of Understanding with districts, for
20
the purpose of ensuring that dissemination efforts were well thought-out, aligned with larger
strategic efforts, documented in the form of a proposal for the sharing of practice, and received
oversight from the district and Department staff alike.
21
VI. Intervention and Targeted Assistance Initiatives
During fiscal year 2011, the Department has focused its targeted assistance efforts on building
the capacities of the 10 Commissioner’s Districts (Lawrence, Lynn, Lowell, Boston, Brockton,
Fall River, New Bedford, Worcester, Springfield, and Holyoke) to support those districts’
highest-need schools. Implementation of the targeted assistance account also supports turnaround
plans in Gill-Montague, Holyoke, Randolph and Southbridge, as detailed earlier. Current funding
levels have enabled the Department to partially address these top priorities. The Department has
also determined to reach the remaining districts and schools in the state—including those with
considerable need at Level 3.
Regional System of Support
In order to reach those Level 3 districts and schools, as well as others in which performance and
improvement lag and prompt a need for district capacity-building, the Department established 6
regionally based District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs) in the late fall of 2009.
DSACs provide priority assistance to identified districts and their schools using targeted
professional development and assistance to improve instruction and raise achievement for all
students. The DSACs fulfill the Department’s responsibilities outlined in the Department
Framework for Accountability and Assistance by giving first priority for assistance to districts in
Level 3 and then Level 2.
In collaboration with partner organizations, DSACs use a regional approach that leverages the
knowledge, skills and expertise of local educators to address shared needs through an emphasis
on expanding district and school capacity for sustained improvement. Each DSAC is led by a
recently retired superintendent working part-time to partner with districts to assess their strengths
and needs and to strategically coordinate assistance to districts. In addition, each DSAC has
contracted with successful principals and district leaders to provide focused assistance to districts
and their high-need schools. DSACs also include data, literacy and mathematics specialists as
part of their assistance teams.
During the course of 2 years, DSACs offered a menu of professional development and targeted
assistance aimed at addressing key district and regional needs. Examples of assistance include:
Focused Professional Development:
 Principal leadership development for standards based schools;
 Sheltered English Immersion strategies for teachers at elementary and
secondary levels (Categories 1 – 4);
 Foundations in Literacy, Reading Informational Text, and Writing;
 Intensive Mathematics Content training, Algebraic Thinking and Rational
Numbers; and
 Universal Design for Learning and Positive Behavior Intervention and
Supports.
22
Assistance to Support Implementation of Effective Practices:
 Training on and modeling of tools to observe classroom practice, build
effective use of common planning time and use data for district level strategic
decisions;
 Networks for superintendents, principals, mathematics and literacy leaders,
coaches and/or teachers; and
 Data reporting and analysis to support district self-assessment and evaluation.
DSACs are located in partner organizations in the Berkshires, Pioneer Valley, Central, Northeast,
Greater Boston and Southeast. Each DSAC has developed and will continue to foster
partnerships and coordinate with the Readiness Center Consortium and other regional
organizations to design and deliver assistance to districts.
The Department has utilized some Targeted Assistance funds in combination with federal Title I,
Special Education and Technology funds to support the DSAC initiative.
23
VII. Update on Accountability Initiatives
Internal Capacity Building
a. In 2010, the Center for Targeted Assistance hired a manager to guide the DSAC
work, as well as a handful of new-hires or internal placements for key positions,
and is currently in the process of making an offer of employment to a professional
who will fill a D-level coordinator position (one of two) that is designed to take
the Level 4 planning and guidance work forward into 2011-2012. This took place
amid budget cuts that forced staff reductions (early retirement incentives and
layoffs) across the agency. This reduction in force impacted the Center directly,
with the loss of several staff members. Despite this, other positions, such as a key
Manager VIII position, are posted to round out staffing in the Center.
b. The Center continues to rely on professionals with specialized experience and
knowledge to perform contractual work around assistance, monitoring and for
regional off-site positions with the DSACs.
c. The Center has been collaborating with the Office of Planning and Research to
Close Proficiency Gaps to develop the template for the Annual District and
School Data Review. The same Office has provided tools that are of great use to
district and school leaders—for example, the DART, or District Analysis and
Review Tool (http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/dart/), which allows district and
school leaders to take visual snapshots of data, tracking specific data elements
over time, so that they can gauge their own sites’ performance in relation to the
state or in relation to “comparable” organizations.
d. The Department is developing a valid methodology for identifying “comparable
schools” for the purpose of statewide analysis and benchmarking and plans to
integrate this function in the Annual District and School Data Review.
e. The Center has collaborated with the Office of Planning and Research to Close
Proficiency Gaps and has executed contracts to develop a searchable database for
the teacher contracts being collected statewide.
f. The Center led an effort to develop a web-based environment for teaching
professionals in and outside the state to learn what Massachusetts’ districts—9 of
the Commissioner’s Districts with Level 4 schools—have to offer to highly
effective teachers (see http://amazingteachers.org/). This web environment was
set up for the purpose of helping those districts focusing on Level 4 improvements
to recruit excellent turnaround staff.
g. The Information Technology Bond proposed by the Governor and approved by
the Legislature is providing funding to help build the technological infrastructure
required to develop a statewide longitudinal database that will include the courses
that students take. Once completed, the database will enable the expansion of
indicators tracked in the Annual Trend Profile (for example, the percent of eighth
grade students completing algebra).
24
h. The Office of Student Assessment’s MCAS Growth Model has been well
received by LEA leaders who use it to determine growth by student, grade,
subgroup, school and/or district, rather than tracking absolute performance alone.
i. The Department is collaborating with MBAE to replicate the function of the Just
for the Kids (JFTK) website.
j. In collaboration with the Executive Office of Education, Department staff applied
for and received a National Governors Association Best Practices Grant, The
Turnaround Challenge: State Strategies to Improve Chronically Low-Performing
Schools, to assist in the design of Levels 4 and 5 of the Framework.
k. The statute transferring responsibility for district reviews to the Department
requires that the Department administer an “annual survey to any schools and
districts receiving technical assistance”. To fulfill part of that obligation,
Department staff engaged the Donahue Institute at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst to conduct an administrator satisfaction survey of every
superintendent, charter school leader and collaborative executive director
statewide; the survey focused on perceptions of how well the Department is
performing the full range of its accountability and assistance functions. Results of
this study inform the Department’s future work.
System Redesign
a. Deputy Commissioner Baehr and other Department staff have met regularly with
the Advisory Council on Accountability and Assistance to examine redesign
needs and options.
b. The Center for District and School Accountability and the Office of Planning and
Research to Close Proficiency Gaps have worked together to develop the Annual
District Data Review, a comprehensive annual district and school 5-year trend
profile. For every district and school, a District Data Review is to be produced
annually and show trends across a range of academic and resource indicators. The
District Data Review relies exclusively on data the Department already collects
from districts and schools. The Data Review is to be accessible to the public and
is to provide a “snapshot” of how schools and districts are performing on multiple
measures compared to other schools and districts in the state.
c. Deputy Commissioner Baehr has used the Framework for District Accountability
and Assistance graphic in discussions with interested parties to focus analysis,
deepen understanding of the issues, strengthen alignment, improve the design and
identify next steps for the Department’s accountability and assistance work.
Groups engaged include the Advisory Council, the Stakeholder Working Group,
the Urban Superintendents’ Network, MassPartners, Department senior staff,
legislative staff, external experts and practitioners and others.
d. The Department has integrated federally-mandated special education
accountability designations within the new Accountability and Assistance
25
Framework levels (that is, Levels 1 through 5, with intervention beginning at
Level 4).
e. The Conditions for School Effectiveness (CSEs) were developed and revised in
consultation with the field and are now familiar to district and school leaders
(especially those at Level 3 or Level 4, with Level 4 redesign planning work
centering on these Conditions). The CSEs have been further delineated through
the provision of clear indicators in a CSE Self-Assessment tool
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ucd/CSESelf-Assesment.doc) that was released for
use by districts and schools in early fall 2010.
f. Urban District Assistance, the DSACs and Accountability continue to collaborate
regularly with colleagues who work in Curriculum and Instruction; student
support, early childhood, secondary schools and connecting activities roles;
Program Quality Assurance; and leadership and licensure to ensure that districts
and schools receive broad-based support from the Department, in addition to
coordinated messaging around expectations, requirements and resources.
District Reviews
a. The fiscal year 2010 budget included funding to conduct district level reviews as
directed in An Act Relative to School District Accountability. In total, 9 urban
districts participated in comprehensive reviews: Fall River, Boston, Lawrence,
Lowell, Holyoke, New Bedford, Worcester, Springfield, and Brockton. In 8 of
these districts, the reviews reported on the effectiveness of each district’s
intervention efforts as they focused on their high-need schools and provided
specific recommendations for improvement.
b. In Fall River, the review resulted in an ongoing engagement with the Department.
Fall River’s Recovery Plan, which is now in the second year of implementation,
was built because of and based on a review conducted by a team of 7 former EQA
examiners. The Office of Targeted Assistance is providing support for
implementation.
c. Center staff identified 6 districts where student achievement and/or outcomes of
Coordinated Program Reviews pointed to effective systems for supporting diverse
learners, particularly those with special needs, in 2008-2009. Completing these 6
reviews provided Department staff with information essential to achieving the
new statutory obligation to coordinate District Reviews and Coordinated Program
Reviews (CPRs). These site visits were completed in June 2009. In 2009-2010,
Center staff identified 11 districts with 1 or more schools with relatively high
growth for limited English proficient (LEP) students. The review was also part of
the Department’s program to recognize schools as “distinguished schools” under
section 1117(b) of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, allowing
ESE to use Title I funds to reward schools that significantly closed proficiency
gaps. Review protocols were developed that focused on leadership, curriculum,
instruction, assessment, human resource management, professional development
and student supports. Through the use of the protocols, reviews identified those
systems and practices that most likely contributed to positive results, as well as
26
those that may have been impeding rapid improvement. Review protocols and
reports are available on the Department’s website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/review/district/.
d. The Center for Accountability collaborated with the Office of Planning and
Research to Close Proficiency Gaps to design and administer surveys of
participants in the 15 district reviews completed in 2008-2009 and the 18 district
reviews completed in 2009-2010. Results have been tabulated and are available.
The survey protocol fulfills a requirement of the new law and has provided
valuable feedback to inform further revisions of the district review process.
e. As mentioned, each district and school receives annual District and School Data
Review data through the DART, or District Analysis and Review Tool
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/dart/). This tool allows the public to see how their
community’s district and schools compare to others across the Commonwealth on
a number of accountability measures related to Leadership, Curriculum and
Instruction, Assessment, Human Resources, Student Support and Financial and
Resource Management.
Charter School Reviews
As has been the practice in past years, state accountability funds were transferred to the
Department’s Charter School Office, enabling them to contract with two vendors to conduct
school renewal inspections.
Accountability Data
As mentioned earlier in this report, the Department has developed a statistically valid method
of measuring growth in student, group, school and district performance over time. The
“growth model,” first released publicly in October 2009, complements the MCAS year-byyear test scores by reporting change over time rather than just grade-level performance
results in any one year. The model identifies “typical” annual growth patterns for students
based on various past patterns of achievement. The model also permits the tracking of
absolute performance in combination with growth by student, grade, subgroup, school and/or
district, thereby identifying schools with exemplary results (high achievement + high growth)
as well as those where students are most at risk (low achievement + low annual growth).
These new results have created a more powerful and efficient means of identifying districts
and schools that require the most intervention and targeted assistance. This initiative has been
supported by targeted assistance funds. Growth scores at the group, school and district levels
are available at http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/mcas.aspx. District administrators
can also access growth data for individual students, groups, schools and districts via the
Department’s secure Education Data Warehouse.
27
VIII. Budget
FY11 7061-9408 Targeted Assistance Spending Report by Initiative
Category
Accountability
Consultants
Conference
Expenses
-
126,782.40
-
-
126,782.40
-
600,000.00
-
-
600,000.00
-
-
-
162,501.00
162,501.00
-
1,944,714.81
-
-
1,944,714.81
-
1,402,033.11
-
-
1,402,033.11
-
212,500.00
-
-
212,500.00
-
111,889.60
-
1,288,787.00
1,400,676.60
-
148,743.18
61,109.53
-
209,852.71
-
46,645.35
-
-
46,645.35
Payroll/Admin
Sub-Total
Grants
Total
Commissioner's District
Sub-Total
Commonwealth Priority Schools (level 4
schools)
Sub-Total
District Capacity Building
Sub-Total
DSAC/Regional System of Support
Sub-Total
Instructional Leadership Training
Sub-Total
Level 4 Districts
Sub-Total
Other Targeted Assistance
Sub-Total
Professional Development
Sub-Total
Existing Staff - 21 FTE's
Sub-Total
1,854,124.02
-
-
-
1,854,124.02
Budget Allocation Total
1,854,124.02
4,593,308.45
61,109.53
1,451,288.00
7,959,830.00
7061-9408 FY11 account
* Balance from FY10 account
Total funds
$
$
$
6,748,450.00
1,211,380.00
7,959,830.00
* Monies rolled forward to support summer activities as authorized by the legislative language expended by
August 31, 2010
28
IX. Appendix
On the following pages are attachments referred to in the text of this report. In general, these
attachments were prepared as reference or guidance documents for districts and schools.
29
Attachment A - Accountability and Assistance Framework
Framework for District Accountability and Assistance
2010-2011
Accountability
District Actions
1
Review & approve District &
School Improvement Plans
2
Use District Analysis and
Review Tool (DART) and
other data to revise
Improvement Plans
Assistance
State Actions
State Actions
 Provide District Analysis and Review
Tool (DART) for every district & school in
Levels 1-5;
 Conduct district reviews for randomly
selected districts
Provide VOLUNTARY Access to online
models & tools
DART, District Data Team Toolkit, planning
tools and templates, self-assessment
resources,, teacher working condition
survey, classroom observation protocols,
promising practice examples, etc.
Conduct district reviews for
randomly selected districts
SUGGEST assistance
Above plus targeted assistance for
identified student groups,
professional development
opportunities, etc.
Level Designations
1
The district has no schools in corrective
action or restructuring for subgroups and/or
in the aggregate
2
The district has one or more schools in
corrective action or restructuring status
under NCLB for subgroups and/or in the
aggregate
The district has one or more Level 3
3 schools (the lowest-performing 20% based
on absolute achievement and improvement
trend as measured by MCAS [and annual
growth rate starting in 2011) and no Level
4 schools
4
Districts enter Level 4 when:
(a) the Commissioner designates the district
Level 4 based on District Accountability
Review findings; or
(b) the district has one or more schools
identified as a Level 4 School on the basis
of quantitative criteria (absolute
achievement, annual growth rate, and
improvement trend as measured by MCAS)
5
Districts declared Level 5 based on the
following:
(a) a fact-finding review concludes that the
district requires stronger intervention
(b) district is unable to present an
acceptable Intervention Plan and/or meet
the progress benchmarks; or
Schools declared Level 5 when district
intervention at one or more Level 4
school(s) does not yield sufficient
improvement
3
Use ESE’s selfConduct selective district
assessment process
reviews
to revise improvement
plans and strategies for
monitoring and
implementing them
4
Commissioner appoints
Collaborate with ESE
Accountability Monitor;
on Intervention Plan;
conduct or use
use it to develop
recent district
district and school
review; guide the
intervention
district’s
strategies and
development of
progress
an Intervention
benchmarks
Plan; approve
For Level 4
Turnaround
Schools,
Plan for
complete
Level 4
turnaround
Schools
plan
District Actions
 Review level of implementation of district
standards and indicators
 Review Conditions for School
Effectiveness
 Review promising practice
examples
 Consider using ESE’s district selfassessment process to assess the
level of implementation of
Levels 1-2 based
district standards and indicators
on NCLB
 Consider how each identified
school can strengthen
Accountability
implementation of the
Determinations
Conditions for
School Effectiveness
 Complete ESE’s district self-
Give PRIORITY for assistance
assessment process
Above plus assistance:
 Develop plans to
guided self-assessment,
implement Conditions
planning guidance, etc.
for School
Effectiveness at each
identified school
REQUIRE
Intervention
Above plus ESE
appoints
Assistance
Liaison to
coordinate
Intervention;
provide
Guidance for
intervention
strategies
and
progress
benchmarks
5
 Implement strategies
for meeting priority
indicators
 Implement
Conditions for
School
Effectiveness
at each
identified
school
A note on federal special education
accountability designations:
ESE places each district in one of five levels of
accountability related to compliance with special
education law and regulation:
Level 1 = Meets Regulation
Level 2 = At Risk
Level 3 = Needs Technical Assistance
Level 4 = Needs Intervention
Level 5 = Needs Substantial Intervention
Placement at one of the above levels related to
special education compliance does NOT mean that
the district is placed at the same level for overall
accountability and assistance. That placement is
made on the basis of the legend on the left
Joint District-ESE
Governance
August 2010
30
Attachment B - Level 4 Schools
District
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Fall River
Fall River
Fall River
Holyoke
Holyoke
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lowell
Lynn
Lynn
New Bedford
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Worcester
Worcester
School
Agassiz
Blackstone
Dearborn
Elihu Greenwood
Harbor School
Jeremiah E Burke High
John F Kennedy
John P Holland
Orchard Gardens
Paul A Dever
The English High
William Monroe Trotter
Henry Lord Middle
John J Doran
Matthew J Kuss Middle
Morgan Elem
Wm J Dean Voc Tech High
Arlington Elementary School
South Lawrence East Middle School
Charlotte M Murkland Elem
E J Harrington
Wm P Connery
John Avery Parker
Alfred G Zanetti
Brightwood
Chestnut Street Middle
Elias Brookings
Gerena
High School Of Commerce
Homer Street
John F Kennedy Middle
M Marcus Kiley Middle
White Street
Chandler Elem Community
Union Hill School
Level
Elementary
Elementary
Middle
Elementary
Middle
High
Elementary
Elementary
Elementary/Middle
Elementary
High
Elementary
Middle
Elementary
Middle
Elementary/Middle
High
Elementary
Middle
Elementary
Elementary
Elementary
Elementary
Elementary/Middle
Elementary
Middle
Elementary
Elementary
High
Elementary
Middle
Middle
Elementary
Elementary
Elementary
31
Attachment C - Summary of Key Level 4 Schools Network (L4N) Activities, March
through December 2010
An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap was signed into law in January 2010 establishing a clear process for the
Department to identify and intervene in the Commonwealth’s 35 lowest performing (Level 4) schools. This new
state law was enacted shortly before USDOE released final regulations for the distribution of School Turnaround
Grant funding. The Level 4 Schools Network (L4N) was convened by the Department to offer assistance to the
nine districts and facilitate knowledge-sharing among them. The following is a brief summary of the L4N Network
activities:
February 24, 2010 – Meeting with Superintendents to Introduce Process
Participants: Superintendents and key district staff from all nine districts; ESE staff
Content of the Meeting:
 Overview of the Level 4 Schools Context and Process: state law requirements; federal grant requirements;
analysis of why “turnaround” has low success rate
 Focus on District Systems of Support: district leadership of the turnaround work with schools; collecting
and analyzing data; importance of teacher selection and support
 Managing the Message: networking activity to develop a positive and clear public message once the
schools are officially announced; inform ESE assistance activities
March 2, 2010 – Webinar Announcing Level 4 Schools Process
Participants: Superintendents, local union presidents, and school committee chairs from all nine districts; ESE
staff
Content of the Webinar:
 Announcement of the Level 4 Schools: the names of the schools were released to each district team prior
to the call; the formal announcement to the press of the names would not be until March 4
 Overview of the Level 4 Schools Context and Process
March 24, 2010 – Workshop with District Teams on Using Data to Inform School Redesign Strategies
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents from all nine districts; ESE
staff; Community Training and Assistance Center (CTAC) staff
Content of the Workshop:
 Presentation on Data-Based Root Cause Analysis: demonstration of triangulating performance,
perception, and observational data to draw conclusions about appropriate intervention strategies
 Activity Using Sample Data from a School
April 7, 2010 – Conference Call on Leadership Analysis and Data Collection
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call:
 School Leadership Decisions: options and expectations for recruiting and selecting new leadership in
Level 4 schools; suggestions for analyzing existing leadership teams
 Baseline Data Collection: options and expectations for how to collect performance, perception, and
observational data from which to set goals
April 9, 2010 – Meeting with Superintendents
Monthly meeting with Superintendents of Level 4 Schools to clarify processes and timeline and share ideas
April 15, 2010 – Workshop with District Teams on Local Stakeholder Groups and Quick Wins
32
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Workshop:
 Local Stakeholder Groups (state requirement): launching and organizing local stakeholder groups;
balancing the expectations of local stakeholder groups and school-level redesign teams; learning from
Boston’s early launch of the local stakeholder groups
 Quick Wins: sharing research about the role of “quick wins” in successful turnaround; workshop to
identify criteria to apply when deciding which quick wins to pursue in order to ensure strategic alignment
with the long-term redesign plan
April 28, 2010 – Conference Call on Early Implementation Grants
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call:
 Technical Assistance: clarity around technical requirements of early implementation grants
 LEA Capacity: emphasized grant submissions as early evidence of district capacity
May 7, 2010 – Meeting with Superintendents
Monthly meeting with Superintendents of Level 4 Schools to clarify processes and timelines and share ideas
May 12, 2010 – Conference Call on Local Stakeholder Groups and Process Timelines
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call: Discussion of ESE guidance on School-Level Redesign Teams, Local Stakeholder Groups,
and Process Timelines
May 18, 2010 – Meeting to Discuss Proposed School Turnaround Grant Rubric
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents from all eligible districts; ESE
staff
Content of the Call: Discussion of draft scoring rubric
May 21, 2010 – Conference Call on Alternative Programs for English-Language Learners
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call: Discussion of ESE guidance on Alternative Programs for ELLs
May 23, 2010 – Meeting to Discuss Draft Measurable Annual Goals (state requirement)
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call: Discussion of draft ESE guidance for measurable annual goals
June 3, 2010 – Conference Call on Strategic Design for First Year Redesign Plans
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call: Discussion of ESE guidance for Selecting Outstanding Teachers for Level 4 Schools, More
Time for Teacher Leader Collaboration, Tiered Instruction: Grounding Document and Self-Assessment
Instrument, and Addressing Students’ Social, Emotional and Health Needs.
June 24, 2010 – Meeting to Discuss the Collective Bargaining Implications in Level 4 Schools
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff; state union
leadership
Content of the meeting: Discussion of options and considerations for how to meet the federal School Turnaround
Grant requirements through the turnaround plan collective bargaining negotiating process. ESE provided guidance
on how parties might meet the rigorous federal standard while allowing for locally-developed solutions to be
generated.
June 29, 2010 – Conference Call to Discuss Finalized Measurable Annual Goals
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
33
Content of the Call: Discussion of draft ESE guidance for measurable annual goals
July 22, 2010 – Conference Call on Turnaround Plans and Bridge Grant Funding
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call: Discussion of Turnaround Plan submission requirements, collective bargaining logistics, and
timing/process for bridge grant fund allocations. Also included guidance on Projects to Improve Workforce
Development Services and Family and Community Engagement Standards and Rubrics as well as current research
on turnaround.
August 26, 2010 – Conference Call on Turnaround Plan (Bargaining and Interview)
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff
Content of the Call: Discussion of Turnaround Plan collective bargaining logistics and upcoming Turnaround Plan
interview process with each district.
October 15, 2010 – Workshop on Options for Increased Learning Time
Participants: Superintendents and their key district staff and local union presidents; ESE staff; Mass2020
Content of the Meeting: Full-day workshop to explore options for meeting the federal requirement for increased
learning time in transformative and financially-sustainable ways. The workshop will lay out a variety of different
approaches and considerations as no one model works every time nor fits every school. Traditional ELT (adding
300 hours) will not be the focus of this workshop. Instead, this day will provide detailed examples, case studies, and
enduring lessons in the areas of how to better use a school's current schedule to yield more learning time; staffing,
scheduling, and budgeting solutions to increase learning time; new uses of technology to add effective learning
time; and ways in which schools have added time to the day and year to tier instruction for all students.
December 23, 2010 – Email Communication on School Redesign Grant Update
Recipients: Superintendents and their key district staff; ESE staff
Content of the Email: Details on grant requirements and support, including introductions to site visits that will be
used for collaborative monitoring of implementation
December 28, 2010 – Email Communication on School Redesign Grant Request for Proposals (RFP)
Recipients: Superintendents and their key district staff; ESE staff
Content of the Email: Acknowledgement that the RFP was posted, and information on targeted assistance sessions
planned for January 2011
34
Attachment D - Measurable Annual Goals Guidance for Level 4 Schools
“What gets measured gets done”
An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap signed into Massachusetts law in January 2010 established a new process
and intervention powers for improving the performance of the lowest performing schools—Level 4 schools—as
identified under the state’s new accountability and assistance framework. The new state law requires that
turnaround plans for Level 4 schools and districts include measurable annual goals in thirteen areas specified by
law.
These measurable annual goals should outline outcomes, or measures of change that provide evidence of shifts in
the skills, knowledge, and behavior of the adults and students targeted by the strategies.
Well-defined measures can provide a powerful focus for all involved in the effort. Measurable annual goals
should1:

Answer: What will change, for whom, by how much, and by when?

Focus on the intermediate and long term

Focus on elements such as the acquisition of skills and knowledge, or the shifting of habits and beliefs.

o
For students, these measures demonstrate the extent to which the shifts in adult practice are having an
impact on their learning and achievement (such as increased performance on MCAS or shifts in their
aspirations).
o
For adults, these measures demonstrate how teachers, principals, and/or district personnel will approach
their work differently as a result of the actions taken (such as teachers applying targeted instructional
strategies in their classroom, or changes in their perception about school culture).
Help in objectively determining whether particular strategies or initiatives should be continued, expanded, or
discontinued and proving whether the district’s theory of improvement, as articulated in its redesign plan, is
sound and effective.
To assist districts and schools in developing solid measurable annual goals, ESE has developed the following
template, guidance documents, and tools. For the areas outlined as criteria for removal of a school from Level 4 in
the Regulations on Accountability and Assistance for Schools and School District, 603 CMR 2.00, ESE has defined
specific measures and numeric targets as described in Level 4 Exit Criteria Guidance and Methodology listed
below.
Guidance Documents and Tools:
1. Measurable Annual Goals Template (with Sample Measures)
2. Level 4 Exit Criteria Guidance and Methodology
3. Baseline Data Tool
4. Stakeholder Perception Survey Data Resource Guide
1
This information is adapted from the District Data Team Toolkit, Module 5: Action, page 9, available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ucd/
35
Attachment E - 2010 Commendation Schools – Summary (09.09.10)
Schools Commended for Narrowing Proficiency Gaps
Schools that substantially narrowed proficiency gaps for low income, limited English proficient, and special
education students over a two-year period. The schools must:
a. Have a positive Composite Performance Index (CPI) change for high needs students (students in low
income, limited English proficient (LEP)/formerly LEP, or special education subgroup) from 2008-2009
and from 2009-2010 in both English language arts and mathematics and have an overall CPI change of
5 points or greater from 2008-2010 in both subjects;
b. Increase percentage of high needs students scoring Proficient and Advanced by one or more
percentage points from 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010 in both subjects;
c. Meet the 2010 AYP participation rate and additional indicator (attendance / graduation rate)
requirement for all reportable student groups in both subjects; and
d. Carry same school code from 2007-2010, assess 40 or more high needs students each year from 20072010, and serve one or more tested grades each year from 2007 to 2010.
Schools Commended for High Growth
Schools that demonstrated median growth of 60 or higher for two consecutive years. The schools must:
e. Have an aggregate median student growth percentile (SGP) of 60 or greater in both English language
arts and mathematics for two consecutive years (2009 and 2010);
f. Meet the 2010 AYP participation rate and additional indicator (attendance / graduation rate)
requirement for all reportable student groups in both subjects; and
g. Carry same school code from 2007-2010, assess 20 or more students in the aggregate in the current
year. and be eligible to receive a median SGP in 2010.
Schools Commended for Exiting NCLB Accountability Status
Schools that exited their NCLB accountability status based on current year AYP determinations. The schools must:
h. Be identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring under NCLB in 2009-10 and, after
making AYP for two years, be assigned to the positive No Status category for 2010-11; and
i. Carry same school code from 2008-2010 and assess 20 or more students in the aggregate in the
current year.
Category
Schools may be identified
in multiple categories
Narrowing Proficiency Gaps
High Growth
Exiting NCLB Accountability Status
# Schools
Tot
al
69
83
63*
Title I
Non-Title I
45
35
41
24
48
22
# Districts
53
59
50
TOTAL UNIQUE RECORDS
188
107
81
118
* One school exiting NCLB accountability status closed after the 2009-10 school year.
36
Attachment F - Title I Commendation Schools in Commissioner’s Districts
The following Title I Commendation Schools in Commissioner’s Districts are each entitled to an award of $10,000.
District Name
Boston
Lawrence
Lowell
New Bedford
Worcester
Grade
Level
School
Accountability
and Assistance
Level
Mary Lyon
Dennis C Haley
Eliot Elementary
ESMS
ES
ESMS
Level 1
Level 3
Level 1
Franklin D Roosevelt
ESMS
Level 2
Joseph Lee
Michael J Perkins
Thomas Gardner
Urban Science Academy
ES
ES
ES
HS
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 1
South Lawrence East
Elementary
Abraham Lincoln
Charles W Morey
John J Shaughnessy
Dr An Wang School
James B Congdon
Sgt Wm H Carney Acad
George H Dunbar
Alfred J Gomes
Abraham Lincoln
Carlos Pacheco
Thomas R Rodman
Jireh Swift
Clark St Community
Elm Park Community
Heard Street
Jacob Hiatt Magnet
Roosevelt
Tatnuck
ES
Level 2
ES
ES
ES
MS
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 1
Level 3
Level 3
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 3
Level 1
Level 3
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2
School Name
Commended For…
High growth
Narrowing proficiency gaps
High growth,
Narrowing proficiency gaps
High growth,
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Narrowing proficiency gaps,
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
High growth,
Narrowing proficiency gaps
High growth
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Narrowing proficiency gaps
High growth
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Narrowing proficiency gaps
High growth
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
High growth
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Narrowing proficiency gaps
The following three Commendation Schools, while in Commissioner’s Districts, are not Title I schools, and therefore are not
eligible for Title I funds.
District Name
School Name
Grade
Level
School
Accountability
and Assistance
Level
Fall River
North End Elementary
ES
Level 3
Worcester
Nelson Place
Burncoat Middle School
ES
MS
Level 1
Level 3
Commended For…
High growth
Narrowing proficiency gaps,
Exiting 2009 NCLB accountability status
Narrowing proficiency gaps
37
Attachment G - Sample Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) District Report for
Somerville and Sample Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) School Report for
Argenziano School in Somerville
38
39
40
41
42