Malden Public Schools Comprehensive District Review

Malden Public Schools Comprehensive District Review

Comprehensive District Review Report

Malden Public Schools

Review conducted October 24-27, 2016

Center for District and School Accountability

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Organization of this Report

Executive Summary

Malden Public Schools Comprehensive District Review Overview

Leadership and Governance

Curriculum and Instruction

Assessment

Human Resources and Professional Development

Student Support

Financial and Asset Management

Appendix A: Review Team, Activities, Schedule, Site Visit

Appendix B: Enrollment, Performance, Expenditures

Appendix C: Instructional Inventory

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

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

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

Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.

Commissioner

Published February2017

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

© 2017Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

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

This document printed on recycled paper

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

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

Malden Public Schools Comprehensive District Review

Executive Summary

Malden is one of the most diverse districts in Massachusetts. With its large and evenly distributed racial/ethnic subgroups, the district does nothave one group that can claim majority status. In the 2016 school year, 31 percent of students were white; 20 percent, African-American; 22 percent, Hispanic/ Latino; and 23 percent, Asian. Many students come to school every day with high programmatic and support needs. For example, English language learners make up18.7 percent of enrollment, compared with 9.0 percent in the state. Fifty percent of Malden’s students did not learn English as a first language, compared withnineteen percent in the state. Forty percent of students are economically disadvantaged, compared with twenty-seven percent statewide. Malden’s students with disabilities make up 16 percent of enrollment, slightly below the state average of 17 percent. These demographics present both challenges and opportunities in how the district meets the learning needs of and provides support to all its students.

In July 2016, an interim superintendent replaced a leader who moved to another district after five years in Malden. The interim superintendent has made it clear that he is a candidate for the permanent position. He began by refocusing the district on a more deliberate and publicteaching and learning agenda. He led district leaders on a retreat in August 2016 to establish teaching and learning goals and to agree on a set of districtwideinstructional best practices. The leadership team also decided to emphasize six “focus indicators” during the educator evaluation process. At the time of the onsite in late October 2016, the interim superintendent planned to lead in November 2016 a school committee retreat to establish strategic goals and guidelines for the fiscal year 2018 budget development process.

The district has an early learning center for pre-kindergarten students, 5 large K-8 schools, and a high school. Two of the K-8 schools are Extended Learning Time (ELT) schools that have used ELT resources to hire additional staff and provide more planning time for teachers. A third K-8 school, an Innovation School focused on STEAM subjects (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) uses some of the district’scurriculum and assessments and has its own professional development. The other two K-8 schools follow standard district policies and programs. The high school is organized into four houses, each with a house principal, guidance counselor, and school adjustment counselors (who are all licensed social workers). The high school also has an alternative program for high-risk students. The district’s seven schools have traditionally operated as a system of schools rather than a school system; the interim superintendent has begun to address this by making district systems and practices more cohesive and coherent.

The district participates in the Five District Partnership (5DP) with Chelsea, Everett, Revere, and Winthrop. The 5DP was created to ensure that students who relocate within these neighboring districts have a stable education, with access to programs using shared curriculum guides and units, similar teaching methods, andcommon assessments. Malden’s use of 5DP teaching materials isnot consistent across schools.

As part of the site visit, the team observed 89 classes throughout the district: 19 at the high school, 34 in grades 5-8, and 36 in kindergarten through grade 4. The team observed 37 ELA classes, 32 mathematics classes, and 20 classes in other subject areas. Among the classes observed were two special education classes, four ELL or SEI classes, and one career-technical education class. The observations were approximately 20 minutes in length. All review team members collected data using ESE’s instructional inventory, a tool for recording observed characteristics of standards-based teaching. This data is presented in Appendix C.

Inobserved classes, the review team was impressed overall with the tone and positive learning environment in all schools. Students were valued, respectful, well behaved, and more often than not engaged in learning. The district’s K-5 literacy program, supported at 4 out of 5 schools by Bay State Reading Institute,calls for differentiated instruction and collaborative, active learning in small groups. Reviewers observed both: in many K-5 ELA lessons more than one adult worked with groups of students on reading, writing, and other literacy activities. Cooperative learning and differentiation to meet students’ learning needs werenot consistently observed in lessons across schools.

In observed classes,review team members found that the quality and rigor of instruction was inconsistent across the district. Of particular concern was a wide variation in most characteristics of effective instruction between the K-8 schools and the high school. High-school lessons were less likely to: set high expectations; demonstrate student engagement; encourage critical thinking; provide students opportunities to take responsibility for their own learning either individually, in pairs or in groups; use differentiation to make content accessible for all learners; and use formative assessments to check for understanding and provide feedback to students.

Strengths

The interim superintendent has initiated a process to articulate a strong educational vision and plan for improvement. In addition, he has institutedcollaborative Instructional Focus Walks to monitor and improve instruction. Additional strengths are evidentin the attentive curriculum and instructional leadership in K-5 literacy and in the K-12 English Language Learning (ELL)program as well as in program organization and leadership in special education. Each of these emphasizes the use of data to guide decision-making.

The district’s participation in the 5DP provides collaborative opportunities to develop and use common standards-based curriculum maps and units, assessments, and professional development. Apart from academic support, the district is resolute in its attention to supporting students’ social-emotional and behavioral needs. Consequently, it has allocated personnel and resources to programs for its most challenging students. These include the Pathways alternative program at the high school, a multi-tiered system of support for struggling students, and a number of specialized programs throughout the district. Finally, the district and the city have cultivated a strong and mutually trustful working relationship to plan and manage finances and maintainand plan for school building needs.

Challenges and Areas for Growth

Of the 24 initiatives in the District Improvement Plan (DIP) in use since 2015,fewhave addressed improvements toteaching and learning and the DIPhas not been widely known in the district. School improvement planning has been inconsistent and has not been aligned to the DIP. In addition, improvement planning has not typically informed decisions for resource allocation when planning the budget.

The tradition of school autonomy and thecreation of two ELT schools and one Innovation Schoolhave contributed toresource inequities across schools---in staffing patterns, teacher planning time, and instructional materials.Resource inequities, in turn, have compromised the ability of the multi-tiered system of support to deliver what it promises to all students in need. Although the overallchronic absence rate in the district has improved in recent years, chronic absence at the high school needs improvement.

Prioritization of classroom resources has led to consolidations in content leadership roles. This has had a negative impact on consistency in curriculum and instruction and on the comprehensiveness of the assessment system. And although there are K-8 coaches for ELA and math to help teachers use data for improvement, the team found limited evidence that data-driven decision-making is common in all subjects. The district is also without dedicated human resources leadership and has eliminated the position of director of guidance. In most instances the district’s educator evaluation system does not promote professional growth and development for both teachers and administrators because of an absence of substantive, actionable recommendations in evaluation documents. In a related challenge, professional development has not been systematically planned with firm links to district and school improvement goals.

Recommendations

• District leaders should continue to develop an improvement planning process that guarantees consistent, commonly understood high-quality instructiondelivered through a vertically and horizontally aligned and rigorous curriculum based on state frameworks.
• District leaders should improve the development and communication of district and school priorities to all stakeholders.
• Improvement planning and resource allocation should be inextricably linked.
• The district should ensure appropriate leadership for curriculum, instruction, and assessment at the school level to ensure the consistent development, alignment, and effective deliveryof the curriculum.
• The district should develop specific strategies, timelines, and clear expectations for the collection, analysis, and use of data districtwide.
• District leadership should ensure that the educator evaluation system promotes growth-oriented collaborative supervision and evidence-based evaluation.
• District leaders, teachers, and staff should work collaboratively to improve practices and programs to ensure that all students have sufficient support to be successful in school and stay in school.

Malden Public SchoolsComprehensive District Review Overview

Purpose

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

Districts reviewed in the 2016-2017 school year include districts classified into Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4of ESE’s framework for district accountability and assistance. Review reports may be used by ESE and the district to establish priority for assistance and make resource allocation decisions.

Methodology

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

Site Visit

The site visit to the Malden Public Schools was conducted from October 24-27, 2016. The site visit included 33 hours of interviews and focus groups with approximately73 stakeholders, including school committee members, district administrators, school staff,students,and teachers’ association representatives. The review team conducted three focus groups arranged by the district to include one teacher volunteer per K-8 school and one volunteer from each core content area in the highschool. As a result, there weresixelementary-grade teachers, fivemiddle-grade teachers, and fourhigh-school teachers.

A list of review team members, information about review activities, and the site visit schedule are found in Appendix A and Appendix B provides information about enrollment, student performance, and expenditures. The team observed classroom instructional practice in89 classrooms in 6of the district’s7 schools. (The team did not observe classes in the early learning center.) The review teamcollected data using an instructional inventory, a tool for recording observed characteristics of standards-based teaching. This data is contained in Appendix C.

District Profile

Malden has a mayor-council form of government and the mayor is the chair of the school committee.The nine members of the school committee (eight elected by ward) meet monthly.

The current superintendent isan interim and has been in the position since July 2016. The district leadership team, or “cabinet,” includes:theinterim assistant superintendent for curriculum, instruction, and assessment;theassistant superintendent for special education and student services; andthebusiness manager. The number of central office positions has been mostly stableover the past five years, but there have beensubstantialreductions in curriculum leadership personnel and changes in other leadership personnel. The district hasseven principals leadingsevenschools---two K-8 principals are interim. There are 26 other administrators, including13 assistant principals,theELL and Title III director, theliteracy and Title I director,thedirector of humanities, the director of STEM, the director of athletics and physical education,the nursing and health manager, thedata and assessment manager, the instructional technology manager, and five program managers for special education. In the 2015-2016 school year, there were 458.3 teachers in the district.

In the 2015-2016school year,6,570 studentswere enrolled in the district’s 7 schools:

Table 1: Malden Public Schools

Schools, Type, Grades Served, and Enrollment*, 2015-2016

School Name / School Type / Grades Served / Enrollment
Malden Early Learning Center / EES / Pre-K / 288
Beebe School / ESMS / K-8 / 891
Ferryway School / ESMS / K-8 / 925
Forestdale School / ESMS / K-8 / 594
Linden School / ESMS / K-8 / 892
Salemwood School / ESMS / K-8 / 1,158
Malden High School / HS / 9-12 / 1,822
Totals / 7 schools / PK-12 / 6,570
*As of October 1, 2015

Between 2012and 2016 overall student enrollment decreased by two students.Enrollment figures by race/ethnicity and high needs populations (i.e., students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners (ELLs) and former ELLs) as compared with the state are provided in Tables B1a and B1b in Appendix B.

Total in-district per-pupil expenditures were the same as the median in-district per pupil expenditures for 35 PK-12 districts of similar size (5,000-7,999 students) in fiscal year 2015: $12,947 (see District Analysis and Review Tool Detail: Staffing & Finance). Actual net school spending hasbeen above what is required by the Chapter 70 state education aid program, as shown in Table B6 in Appendix B.

Student Performance

Malden is a Level 3 district because Malden High is in Level 3 for being among the lowest performing 20 percent of high schools.

• Malden High has persistently low graduation rates for students with disabilities and has low assessment participation (less than 95 percent) for students with disabilities.

Table 2: Malden Public Schools
District and School PPI, Percentile, and Level 2013–2016
School / Group / Annual PPI / Cumulative PPI / School
Percentile / Accountability
Level
2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016
Malden ELC / All / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / --
High Needs / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / --
Beebe ESMS / All / 65 / 75 / 0 / 80 / 76 / 61 / 2
High Needs / 60 / 70 / 70 / 70 / 69
Ferryway ESMS / All / 60 / 0 / 0 / 83 / 79 / 52 / 2
High Needs / 60 / 0 / 0 / 75 / 72
Forestdale ESMS / All / 55 / 40 / 80 / 55 / 60 / 42 / 2
High Needs / 55 / 35 / 80 / 45 / 55
Linden ESMS / All / 75 / 65 / 80 / 50 / 65 / 76 / 2
High Needs / 80 / 55 / 0 / 55 / 59
Malden ELC / All / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / --
High Needs / -- / -- / -- / -- / --
Salemwood ESMS / All / 90 / 50 / 70 / 55 / 62 / 46 / 2
High Needs / 90 / 60 / 0 / 60 / 64
Malden High / All / 46 / 96 / 93 / 68 / 79 / 20 / 3
High Needs / 46 / 93 / 93 / 39 / 67
District / All / 57 / 54 / 61 / 57 / 57 / -- / 3
High Needs / 57 / 50 / 64 / 46 / 54

Between 2015 and 2016, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations improved by 5 percentage points in ELA and by 1 percentage point in math.

• The percentage of high needs students meeting or exceeding expectations improved by 4 percentage points in ELA and did not improve in math.
• The percentage of economically disadvantaged students meeting or exceeding expectations improved by 5 percentage points in ELA and did not improve in math.
• The percentage of ELL and former ELL students meeting or exceeding expectations improved by 2 percentage points in the ELA and by 3 percentage points in math.
• The percentage of students with disabilities meeting or exceeding expectations improved by 1percentage point in ELA and did not improve in math.

Table 3: Malden Public Schools
ELA and Math Meeting or Exceeding Expectations (Grades 3-8) 2015-2016
Group / ELA / Math
2015 / 2016 / Change / 2015 / 2016 / Change
All students / 44% / 49% / 5 / 44% / 45% / 1
High Needs / 36% / 40% / 4 / 37% / 37% / 0
Economically Disadvantaged / 39% / 44% / 5 / 39% / 39% / 0
ELL and former ELL students / 32% / 34% / 2 / 37% / 40% / 3
Students with disabilities / 9% / 10% / 1 / 8% / 8% / 0

Between 2013 and 2016, the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in science declined by 5 percentage points for all students, by 9 percentage points for high needs students, and by 1 and 2 percentage points for ELL and former ELL students and students with disabilities, respectively. In 2016 the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in science was 15 percentage points below the state rate for the district as a whole and 13 percentage points below the state rate for students with disabilities. In 2016 the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in science was 4 percentage points below the 2016 state rate for high needs students and 2 percentage points for economically disadvantaged students.