District Review
Review conducted April 9-12, 2012
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
Date of report completion: January 2013
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.
© 2013 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
Table of Contents
Overview of District Reviews 4
Purpose 4
Methodology 4
Stoneham Public Schools 1
District Profile 1
Findings 5
Student Achievement 5
Leadership and Governance 6
Curriculum and Instruction 9
Assessment 17
Human Resources and Professional Development 21
Student Support 22
Financial and Asset Management 26
Recommendations 30
Appendix A: Review Team Members 38
Appendix B: Review Activities and Site Visit Schedule 39
Appendix C: Student Performance 2009–2011 42
Appendix D: Finding and Recommendation Statements 46
Overview of District Reviews
Purpose
The goal of district reviews conducted by the Center for District and School Accountability (CDSA) in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) is to support districts in establishing or strengthening a cycle of continuous improvement. Reviews consider carefully the effectiveness, efficiency, and integration of systemwide functions using ESE’s six district standards: Leadership and Governance, Curriculum and Instruction, Assessment, Human Resources and Professional Development, Student Support, and Financial and Asset Management.
District reviews are conducted under Chapter 15, Section 55A of the Massachusetts General Laws and include reviews focused on “districts whose students achieve at low levels either in absolute terms or relative to districts that educate similar populations.” Districts subject to review in the 2011-2012 school year include districts that were in Level 3[1] (in school year 2011 or school year 2012) of ESE’s framework for district accountability and assistance in each of the state’s six regions: Greater Boston, Berkshires, Northeast, Southeast, Central, and Pioneer Valley. The districts with the lowest aggregate performance and least movement in Composite Performance Index (CPI) in their regions were chosen from among those districts that were not exempt under Chapter 15, Section 55A, because another comprehensive review had been completed or was scheduled to take place within nine months of the planned reviews.
Methodology
To focus the analysis, reviews collect evidence for each of the six district standards (see above). The reviews seek to identify those systems and practices that may be impeding rapid improvement as well as those that are most likely to be contributing to positive results. The district review team consists of independent consultants with expertise in each of the district standards who review selected district documents and ESE data and reports for two days before conducting a four-day district visit that includes visits to various district schools. The team holds interviews and focus groups with such stakeholders as school committee members, teachers’ union representatives, administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Team members also observe classes. The team then meets for two days to develop findings and recommendations before submitting the draft of their district review report to ESE.
Stoneham Public Schools
The site visit to the Stoneham Public Schools was conducted from April 9–12, 2012. The site visit included 29 interviews and focus groups with over 45 stakeholders ranging from school committee members to district administrators and school staff to teachers’ association representatives. The review team conducted interviews with one elementary, three middle school, and two high school teachers. The team also conducted visits to each of the district’s six schools: Central Elementary School (kindergarten through grade 5), Colonial Park Elementary School (pre-kindergarten through grade 5), Robin Hood Elementary School (kindergarten through grade 5), South Elementary School (pre-kindergarten through grade 5), Stoneham Middle School (grades 6–8), and Stoneham High School (grades 9–12). Further information about the review and the site visit schedule can be found in Appendix B; information about the members of the review team can be found in Appendix A. Appendix C contains information about student performance from 2009–2011. Appendix D contains finding and recommendation statements.
Note that any progress that has taken place since the time of the review is not reflected in this benchmarking report. Findings represent the conditions in place at the time of the site visit, and recommendations represent the team’s suggestions to address the issues identified at that time.
District Profile[2]
A five-member board of selectmen governs the town of Stoneham and a town administrator provides the administration. The schools have a five-member school committee. The superintendent has just completed his fifth year in the position. In addition to the superintendent, the leadership team consists of the director of curriculum, the director of pupil personnel, and the director of school finance. The director of pupil personnel is in his first year in 2011–2012. In addition, as of July 2012, the director of elementary education position will be eliminated and the incumbent of that position will begin service as the new director of curriculum PK–12. This means that content area program supervisors, who had previously supervised curriculum at the secondary level, now work under the overall direction of the director of curriculum PK–12.
Table 1a below shows the 2010–2011 Stoneham enrollment by race/ethnicity and selected populations, while Table 1b shows the same for 2011–2012. The Stoneham school district has a total enrollment in 2012 of 2,467 students. The enrollment decreased from 2,894 in 2007 (data not in a table) to 2,550 in 2011 (a 12 percent change) and decreased again in 2012. Over the same period, the proportion of low-income students increased from 11 percent of total enrollment in 2007 (data not in a table) to 15 percent in 2012. From 2007 to 2012 the district’s enrollment of students receiving special education services fluctuated between 16.8 percent and 18.5 percent (2007–2010 data not in a table). There has been little change in the proportion of students whose first language is not English. From 2007 to 2012 it has fluctuated between 6.8 percent and 7.9 percent of total enrollment, while the proportion of English language learners has fluctuated between 1.8 percent and to 2.5 percent of total enrollment (2007–2010 data not in a table).
Table 1a: Stoneham Public Schools
Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity & Selected Populations
2010–2011
Selected Populations / Number / Percent of Total /Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
/ Number / Percent of TotalTotal enrollment / 2,550 / 100.0 / African-American/
Black / 47 / 1.8
First Language not English / 183 / 7.2 / Asian / 75 / 2.9
Limited English Proficient* / 65 / 2.5 / Hispanic/Latino / 88 / 3.5
Special Education** / 438 / 16.8 / White / 2,278 / 89.3
Low-income / 371 / 14.5 / Native American / 2 / 0.1
Free Lunch / 281 / 11.0 / Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander / 13 / 0.5
Reduced-price lunch / 90 / 3.5 / Multi-Race,
Non-Hispanic / 47 / 1.8
*Limited English proficient students are referred to in this report as “English language learners.”
**Special education number and percentage (only) are calculated including students in out-of-district placements.
Sources: School/District Profiles on ESE website and other ESE data
Table 1b: Stoneham Public Schools
Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity & Selected Populations
2011–2012
Selected Populations / Number / Percent of Total /Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
/ Number / Percent of TotalTotal enrollment / 2,467 / 100.0 / African-American/
Black / 43 / 1.7
First Language not English / 196 / 7.9 / Asian / 73 / 3.0
Limited English Proficient* / 49 / 2.0 / Hispanic/Latino / 94 / 3.8
Special Education** / 461 / 18.3 / White / 2,187 / 88.7
Low-income / 362 / 14.7 / Native American / 3 / 0.1
Free Lunch / 292 / 11.8 / Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander / 13 / 0.5
Reduced-price lunch / 70 / 2.8 / Multi-Race,
Non-Hispanic / 54 / 2.2
*Limited English proficient students are referred to in this report as “English language learners.”
**Special education number and percentage (only) are calculated including students in out-of-district placements.
Sources: School/District Profiles on ESE website and other ESE data
As Table 2 below illustrates, Stoneham Public Schools’ actual net school spending was 11.8 percent and 15.4 percent above required net school spending in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011, and was projected to be 19.8 percent above in fiscal year 2012. Chapter 70 aid dropped from $3,461,523 in fiscal year 2010 to $3,310,118 in fiscal year 2011 and increased slightly to $3,327,888 in fiscal year 2012. Local appropriations increased by 2.2 percent in fiscal year 2011 (based on estimated or budgeted amounts) and by 2.7 percent in fiscal year 2012.
Table 2: Stoneham Public Schools
Expenditures, Chapter 70 State Aid, and Net School Spending
Fiscal Years 2010–2012
FY10 / FY11 / FY12Estimated / Actual / Estimated / Actual / Estimated
Expenditures
From local appropriations for schools
by school committee / 22,007,111 / 22,006,070 / 22,500,000 / 22,230,000 / 23,074,917
by municipality / 10,731,663 / 10,470,453 / 10,971,481 / 11,112,355 / 11,289,399
Total from local appropriations / 32,738,774 / 32,476,523 / 33,471,481 / 33,342,355 / 34,364,316
From revolving funds and grants / --- / 4,335,614 / --- / 4,605,496 / ---
Total expenditures / --- / 36,812,137 / --- / 37,947,851 / ---
Chapter 70 aid to education program
Chapter 70 state aid* / --- / 3,461,523 / --- / 3,310,118 / 3,327,888
Required local contribution / --- / 19,854,576 / --- / 19,664,269 / 19,761,522
Required net school spending** / --- / 23,316,099 / --- / 22,974,387 / 23,089,410
Actual net school spending / --- / 26,071,434 / --- / 26,522,779 / 27,659,405
Over/under required ($) / --- / 2,755,335 / --- / 3,548,392 / 4,569,995
Over/under required (%) / --- / 11.8% / --- / 15.4% / 19.8%
*Chapter 70 state aid funds are deposited in the local general fund and spent as local appropriations.
**Required net school spending is the total of Chapter 70 aid and required local contribution. Net school spending includes only expenditures from local appropriations, not revolving funds and grants. It includes expenditures for most administration, instruction, operations, and out-of-district tuitions. It does not include transportation, school lunches, debt, or capital.
Sources: FY10, FY11 District End-of-Year Reports; Chapter 70 Program information on ESE website.
Data retrieved on September 10, 2012.
Findings
Student Achievement
Student proficiency rates between 2009 and 2011 have consistently been above state rates in ELA and at or above state rates in mathematics. Between 2009 and 2011, median student growth percentiles (SGPs) in ELA improved substantially and those in mathematics increased steadily.
The Stoneham school district has seen steadily improving and strong results on MCAS (see Tables C1 and C2 in Appendix C). In ELA in 2009, 70 percent of the district’s students were proficient, while 67 percent of their peers across the state were proficient, a three-point difference. In 2010, the district’s percent proficient rose 6 percentage points to 76 percent while the state rate moved up to 68 percent, an 8-point difference. In 2011 there was still an 8 percentage point difference between the two with the district’s students at 77 percent proficiency and their peers across the state at 69 percent proficiency.
In math, the district and the state had the same rates of student proficiency in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, the district and the state had 55 percent of students scoring proficient or higher, and in 2010, district and state results both improved slightly, to a 59 percent proficiency rate. Then in 2011, the district proficiency rate moved up 3 percentage points to 62 percent while the state proficiency rate went down one percentage point to 58 percent.
The district also had improvements in its median SGPs. In 2009, the district’s median SGP in ELA was in the moderate range, at 51.0. But in 2010 the district’s median SGP improved meaningfully to 62.0 (in the high range), and remained in the high range in 2011 at 61.0. In math in 2009, the median SGP was also in the moderate range, again at 51.0. Then it increased in 2010 to 53.5 and to 57.0 in 2011.
In addition, MCAS ELA scores in several grades showed impressive improvements. Grades 5, 6, and 7 all had proficiency rates at least 10 percentage points higher in 2011 than they had in 2009. In grade 10, the proficiency rate did not increase, but it was already more than 10 percentage points higher than the state grade 10 rate. The percentage of district grade 10 students scoring proficient or higher in 2009, 2010, and 2011 hovered around 90 percent, their median SGP increased from 59.0 in 2009 to 73.0 in 2010 to an unusual 87.0 in 2011.
In math, two grades showed remarkable improvements. In grade 5, the percentage of students proficient or higher moved from 43 percent in 2009 to 64 percent in 2010 to 74 percent in 2011, an improvement of 31 percentage points. Median SGPs in grade 5 moved from 41.0 in 2009 to 54.0 in 2010 to 65.0 in 2011, in the high growth range. In grade 8 over the same period, the percentage of students proficient or higher rose from 42 percent in 2009 to 58 percent in 2010 to 66 percent in 2011, an improvement of 24 percentage points. And the median SGPs increased from 65.0 in 2009 to 77.0 in 2010 to 83.0 in 2011.
In general, the district demonstrates an impressive ability to analyze MCAS results after each administration and adjust instruction to address areas of need, as will be described in detail in the second Assessment finding below. At some grades, improvements have been remarkable.