Comprehensive District Review Report

Worcester Public Schools

Review conducted January 2327, 2017

Center for District and School Accountability

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Organization of this Report

Executive Summary1

Worcester Public Schools Comprehensive District Review Overview5

Leadership and Governance22

Curriculum and Instruction30

Assessment44

Human Resources and Professional Development52

Student Support61

Financial and Asset Management66

Appendix A: Review Team, Activities, Schedule, Site Visit75

Appendix B: Enrollment, Performance, Expenditures78

Appendix C: Instructional Inventory109

Appendix D: Worcester Public Schools Organizational Chart112

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

www.doe.mass.edu

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

Mitchell D. Chester, Ed. D.

Commissioner

Published June 2017

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 Departments 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.

2017 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 781-338-3000TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370

www.doe.mass.edu

Worcester Public Schools Comprehensive District Review

Executive Summary

Worcester, the states second-largest public school district, is experiencing a transitional period as revised priorities and a reorganization and redefinition of several key central office roles take hold. A 41-year veteran Worcester educator was named superintendent in May 2016. In October 2016, the new superintendent presented her First 100 Days Report, in which she described four goals that now focus the districts efforts; the goals relate to curriculum and learning, community partnerships to support students, school and district leadership and professional learning, and school safety. In addition, the district is engaging the entire Worcester community to develop a new visionary strategic plan for transformation of the Worcester Public Schools and seeks to establish the Worcester Public Schools as a best-practice model for urban public education.

The 44 district schools, which enroll 25,479 students, reflect a wide range of progress, student achievement results, and teachers perceptions of teaching conditions and practice. Worcester is a Level 4 district because one elementary school is a Level 4 school. Of the districts 33 elementary schools, 9 are classified as Level 1 and 10 are classified as Level 2. The district also has 21 schools classified as Level 3 for being among the lowest performing 20 percent of schools in their respective grade spans.

Table 1: Worcester Public Schools by Accountability Level, 20162017

Accountability Level

Number of District Schools Classified in Each Level

Number of Elementary Schools Classified in Each Level

1

10

9

2

12

10

3

21

13

4

1

1

A 2015 internal survey of teachers perceptions of conditions supporting effective teaching practice indicated wide differences. In those Worcester schools where at least half the teachers completed the survey, the percentage of teachers agreeing that six conditions for effective teaching within the general control of principals were present ranged from 22 percent to 97 percent.

The review team observed 249 classes in 35 of the 44 district schools: 48 classes in grades 912, 31 classes in grades 78, and 170 classes in kindergarten through grade 6.[footnoteRef:1] Observed lessons showed a wide variation in the quality of instruction across the district. Some observed lessons engaged students in rigorous curriculum that provided learning opportunities rich in critical thinking, collaboration, active learning, and a high-level application of knowledge, skills, and understandings. In contrast, other observed lessons fell short of the districts instructional expectations described in its Framework for High Quality Teaching and Learning. In those classrooms, observed lessons did not provide differentiated instructional approaches to meet students diverse learning needs, low expectations for thinking and learning characterized lesson objectives and strategies, classroom management issues distracted teachers from teaching and students from learning, students had few opportunities to be responsible for doing the thinking in the classroom, and teachers voices dominated the class. Overall, in contrast with teaching K8, observers found that instruction in grades 912 was less rigorous, less engaging to students, less likely to encourage and develop students higher-order thinking skills, and less likely to meet students learning styles or needs either individually or in groups. There were, however, notable exceptions to this characterization of observed high-school lessons. [1: The district has a variety of grade spans in its schools: Pre-K, Pre-K6, 68, 78, 712, and 912. In this review, grade 6 was included with elementary schools and grades 78 were included with middle schools.]

For the most part, the review team found a vibrant and informed leadership team in place in the district, one with the knowledge and training to effect meaningful improvement to professional practice and student achievement. The teacher force appeared committed and eager to support students to learn at high levels and to prepare them well to meet the challenges of life after high school. With adequate time, sufficient resources, appropriate support, and sustained efforts, the district can likely meet its goal of becoming a model of urban education in Massachusetts.

Strengths

New systems and practices in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, along with a restructured central office leadership staff, have the potential to provide improved support for teaching and learning. Newly defined positions for three managers for curriculum and learning are designed to support principals, teachers, and content specialists to help close the wide gaps in school practices and student performance. The district has implemented a new three-year curriculum review process and has developed a Framework for High-Quality Teaching and Learning to set expectations for excellence in teaching and learning. The student assessment system is well developed, thoughtful, and strategic. Leaders and teachers have access to useful data reports to guide decision making. The use of data informs multiple facets of leaders work, such as setting and monitoring improvement goals and analyzing and developing the districts budget and its allocation of resources.

Under the newly established office of curriculum and learning, professional learning opportunities are more targeted, collaborative, and timely. The district offers a wide range of programs and services that address students academic and social-emotional needs. The district has taken a number of steps to improve graduation rates, and while four- and five-year graduation rates remain below state averages, they have improved in recent years. Both the Massachusetts Association of School Business Administrators (MASBO) and the American Association of School Business Administrators (AASBO) have recognized the Worcester budget with awards for comprehensiveness.

Challenges and Areas for Growth

The review team identified a number of challenges to leadership and governance. For example, the time required for district and school leaders to respond to school committee members motions requesting information, background, and data has distracted administrators from the day-to-day work of school improvement. Also, the district has not provided common planning time at all schools to maximize teachers ability to collaborate to improve teaching and learning. K12 curriculum documents in ELA/English, math, and science are incomplete and not fully aligned to the 2011 Massachusetts Frameworks and the 2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Framework. Furthermore, there is uneven implementation of the districts Framework of High-Quality Teaching and Learning across schools of the same level and across different school levels. In observed classrooms, the quality of teaching varied widely within and across schools, with stronger teaching taking place K8. Most notably, team members observed variations in expectations for student work and in students opportunities to develop and use higher-order thinking skills. Other challenges included an inconsistent use of differentiated instruction to address students learning needs and of appropriate resources for learning. And while district leaders strategically use data for decision-making, classroom teachers do not consistently demonstrate