TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
2
BACKGROUND
2
1.
THE McDUFFY DECISION
2
2.
THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
6
3.
THE EDUCATION REFORM ACT:
SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES
8
A. School Finance
9
B. Responsibilities of the Commissioner
10
and Board of Education
C. Teachers
13
FINDINGS OF FACT
IV.
15
THE COMMONWEALTH’S IMPLEMENTATION
OF EDUCATION REFORM SINCE 1993
15
A. The Commonwealth’s Increased Financial
Contributions to Local School Districts
15
B. Development of the Curriculum Frameworks
16
C. Development of MCAS
17
D. Teachers
19
E. The Accountability System
20
1. School Accountability System
21
2. District Accountability System
26
F. Some Highlights of Education Reform Since 1993
i
28
5.
1. Greater Equalization of Funding
28
2. MCAS
29
3. NAEP
30
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
IN THE FOUR FOCUS DISTRICTS
32
A. Introduction: The Applicable Standards
32
1. McDuffy’s Guidelines and Seven Capabilities
32
2. The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks
33
a. English Language Arts
35
b. Mathematics
35
c. Science
37
d. History/Social Science
37
e. The Arts
38
f. Health
39
g. Libraries
40
B. Summary of Findings and Conclusions
About the Four Focus Districts
42
1. The Brockton School District
42
2. The Lowell School District
46
3. The Springfield School District
51
4. The Winchendon School District
60
ii
C. The Brockton School District: Specific Findings
70
1. Demographic Information
70
2. School Funding
71
3. Preschool Program
73
4. Elementary Schools
74
5. Junior High Schools
75
6. Brockton High School
75
7. English/Literacy Program
76
8. Math Program
77
9. MCAS Remediation
80
10. History Program
80
11. Science Program
81
12. Arts Program
82
13. Health/Physical Education
83
14. Foreign Language Program
84
15. Libraries
84
16. Technology
86
17. Special Education
87
18. Bilingual Education
91
19. Professional Development
92
20. Teachers and Teacher Openings
93
21. School Buildings in Brockton
96
iii
22. Brockton’s MCAS Results
96
23. Brockton’s SAT Scores
104
D. The Lowell School District: Specific Findings
105
1. Demographic Information
105
2. School Funding
106
3. Preschool Program
109
4. Kindergarten Program
111
5. Elementary Schools
112
6. Middle Schools
114
7. Lowell High School
118
8. English/Literacy Program
118
9. Mathematics Program
120
10. MCAS Remediation in ELA and Math
121
11. History Program
122
12. Science Program
123
13. Fine Arts Program
125
14. Health/Physical Education
126
15. Foreign Language Program
126
16. Libraries and Technology
127
17. Special Education
129
18. Professional Development
132
19. Teachers
134
iv
20. School Buildings
134
21. Dropouts
135
22. Lowell’s MCAS Results
136
23. Lowell’s SAT Scores
144
E. Springfield School District: Specific Findings
144
1. Demographic Information
145
2. School Funding
146
3. Preschool Program
149
4. Kindergarten Program
150
5. Elementary Schools
150
6. Middle Schools
154
7. English/Literacy Program
157
8. Mathematics Program
159
9. History Program
161
10. Science Program
163
11. Arts Program
166
12. Health and Physical Education
168
13. Libraries
169
14. Technology
170
15. Vocational Education
171
a. Academic Program
171
b. Vocational Program
174
v
16. Special Education
176
17. Teachers and Teacher Openings
181
18. Professional Development
181
19. School Buildings in Springfield
183
20. Dropouts
184
21. Springfield’s MCAS Results
186
22. Springfield’s SAT Scores
193
F. The Winchendon School District: Specific Findings
194
1. Demographic Information
194
2. School Funding
195
3. Preschool Program
198
4. Elementary Schools
199
5. Title I Program
204
6. Middle and High School
206
7. Technology
211
8. Arts Program
212
9. Athletics Program
213
10. Special Education
214
11. Professional Development
217
12. Teachers and Professional Staff
218
13. Dropouts
220
14. Winchendon’s MCAS Results
221
vi
15. Winchendon’s SAT Scores
229
16. Winchendon School District Examination by
the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability
230
G. Conclusion
232
VI. THE FOCUS DISTRICTS AND THE “COMPARISON” DISTRICTS
VII.
232
A. Introduction
232
B. Measures of Educational Performance
233
1. MCAS Scores
233
2. Cycle Performance Ratings
239
3. Dropout Rates
241
4. Graduation Rates
244
5. SAT Scores and Participation
245
6. Post-Graduation Plans of High School Seniors
247
C. Conclusion
247
COMMON PROBLEMS OF THE FOCUS DISTRICTS
249
A. Funding
249
1. Introduction
249
2. Models to Evaluate Funding Adequacy
250
a. Successful Schools Model
250
b. Professional Judgment Model
253
(i) Dr. Verstegen’s Study
253
(ii) Dr. Smith’s Study
255
vii
c. Comparison of Net School Spending
and Foundation Budget
257
d. Value Added Analysis
262
3. Problems With Existing Foundation Budget Formula 265
a. Special Education
266
b. Curriculum Frameworks
266
c. Teachers
268
d. Bilingual Education/Limited English Proficiency
269
e. Foundation Budget Review Commission
Determinations
270
f. Other Changes to the Formula
272
4. Reductions in State Funding
273
5. Conclusion
274
B. Special Education
275
1. Areas of Concern
275
2. MCAS Gap Between Regular and
Special Education Students
276
3. Per-Pupil Spending on Special Education
280
4. The Special Education Component of Foundation Budget
281
C. Attracting Qualified Teachers
285
D. Facilities
289
VIII. REMEDIAL ISSUES
291
A. Early Childhood Education
viii
291
1. Introduction
291
2. The Value of Early Childhood Education
292
3. Components of a Quality Preschool Program
295
4. Public vs. Community-Based Private Preschool Programs
296
5. Statewide Efforts to Provide Quality Early Childhood 299
Education
6. Preschool in the Focus Districts
B. Class Size Reduction
301
304
1. Benefits of Small Class Size in the Early Grades
304
2. Class Size in the Focus Districts
307
C. Remediation Programs
308
FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
309
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
A-1
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001
THE MASSACHUSETTS CURRICULUM
FRAMEWORKS
ix
B-1