school effectiveness review - baltimore city public … of achievement and accountability division...

Office of Achievement and Accountability

Division of School Evaluation and Accountability

School Effectiveness Review

Patterson Park Public Charter School

April 26-27, 2012

100 Cummings Center, Suite 236C Beverly, Massachusetts 01915

www.schoolworks.org

200 East North Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21202

www.baltimorecityschools.org

©2012 SchoolWorks LLC and Baltimore City Public Schools. All rights reserved. Not for distribution.

Table of Contents

Part I: Introduction and School Background 1

Introduction to School Effectiveness Review 1

School Background 1

Part II: Summary of Performance Levels 3

Part III: Findings on Domains of Effective Schools 4

Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction 4

Domain 2: Talented People 7

Domain 3: Engaged Families and Community 9

Domain 4: Strategic Leadership 11

Appendix A: SER Team Members 15

Appendix B: School Report Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

©2012 SchoolWorks LLC and Baltimore City Public Schools. All rights reserved. Not for distribution. 1

Part I: Introduction and School Background

Introduction to School Effectiveness Review

The goal of the School Effectiveness Review (SER) is to provide an objective and research-based analysis of

the work schools are doing to impact student achievement. Based on research and school-level best

practices, four domains were identified for review: highly effective instruction, talented people, engaged

families and community, and strategic leadership. In addition, a rubric was created to determine the extent

to which each domain and accompanying key actions are being implemented. Each of these domains closely

aligns with domains held by City Schools for great school leaders and great teachers and is observable in a

set of key actions. Together, these domains, key actions, and supporting indicators form the City Schools’

School Effectiveness Standards.

An SER team, comprised of representatives from SchoolWorks (an educational consulting company) and

representatives from City Schools who have extensive knowledge about schools and instruction, gathered

information from teachers, students, parents, and leadership during a two-day site visit. During the visit, the

SER team observed classrooms, reviewed selected school documents, and conducted focus groups and

interviews with school leadership, teachers, students, and parents. The SER team analyzed evidence

collected over the course of the SER to determine the extent to which key actions have been adopted and

implemented at the school. This report summarizes the ratings in the four domains and key actions,

provides evidence to support the ratings, and – based on a rubric – allocates a performance level for each

key action. More information about the SER process is detailed in the School Effectiveness Review protocol,

available upon request from SchoolWorks and/or City Schools.

School Background

The Patterson Park Public Charter School serves approximately 588 students in grades pre-K through eight.

The school is located on North Lakewood Avenue in the Patterson Park neighborhood of Baltimore,

Maryland. The principal has been at the school for five years. The following tables provide information about

the school’s student demographics and student achievement data.


Student Demographics

Year

2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009

Student Race/Ethnicity (%)

African American 69.39 71.50 70.90

American Indian 1.00 0.70 0.60

Asian American 1.00 0.50 0.80

Hispanic 19.00 18.30 19.00

White 10.00 9.00 8.70

Students Receiving Specialized Services

Special Education 12.60 9.10 9.10

FARM 77.00 81.50 77.70

English Language Learners (ELL)

11.29 12.30 14.40

Student Achievement Data – Maryland State Assessment (MSA) Performance

Year

2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009

MSA Reading (% Proficient/Advanced) 80.4% 82.3% 65.4%

MSA Mathematics (% Proficient/Advanced) 83.9% 78.7% 59.0%

Student Achievement Data –High School State Assessment (HSA) Performance

Year

2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009

HSA Algebra/Data Analysis (% Passed) 52.4% 52.9%


Part II: Summary of Performance Levels

Based on trends found in the collected evidence, the SER team assigns a performance level to each key action.

Domains and Key Actions

Performance Levels

Level 4: Highly Effective

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Developing

Level 1: Not Effective

Domain 1: Highly effective instruction

1.1 Teachers plan highly effective instruction. Effective

1.2 Teachers deliver highly effective instruction. Developing

1.3 Teachers use multiple data sources to adjust practice. Effective

1.4 School leadership supports highly effective instruction. Developing

1.5 Teachers establish a classroom environment in which teaching and learning can occur. Developing

Domain 2: Talented people

2.1 The school creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff whose skills and beliefs represent the diverse needs of all students.

Effective

2.2 The school has created and implemented systems to evaluate teachers and staff against individual and school-wide goals, provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and remove those who do not make reasonable improvement.

Developing

Domain 3: Engaged families and community

3.1 The school provides a safe and supportive learning environment for students, families, teachers, and staff.

Effective

3.2 The school cultivates and sustains open communication and decision-making opportunities with families about school events, policies, and the academic and social development of their children.

Highly Effective

3.3 The culture of the school reflects and embraces student, staff, and community diversity. Effective

Domain 4: Strategic leadership

4.1 The school establishes growth goals that guide strategic planning, teaching, and adjusting of practice to meet student needs.

Effective

4.2 The school allocates and deploys the resources of time, staff talent, and funding to address the priorities of growth goals for student achievement.

Effective

4.3 The school provides regular opportunities for teachers and staff to engage in job- embedded, collaborative planning and adjustment of practice.

Effective

4.4 The school’s board of trustees (or operator) provides competent stewardship and oversight of the school.

Highly Effective


Part III: Findings on Domains of Effective Schools

Domains and Key Actions

Performance Levels

Level 4: Highly Effective

Level 3: Effective

Level 2: Developing

Level 1: Not Effective

Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction

Using appropriate curriculum planning documents, teachers develop standards-based units and long-

term plans. In focus groups, the school leadership team and teachers reported that teachers used

Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) scope and sequence documents, along with the Maryland Voluntary

State Curriculum (VSC) or the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Additionally, document review of

the Faculty Handbook confirmed that the school required teachers to use the VSC or CCSS documents to

create standards-based lesson and unit plans. Document review of unit plans confirmed implementation

of these expectations; unit plans included standards from the VSC.

The school provides teachers access to curriculum planning documents. In focus groups, school

leadership and teachers reported that they access and use Maryland’s VSC, the new CCSS and BCPS

scope and sequence, as well as pacing guides. Additionally, the leadership team and teachers reported

that all teachers help create thematic units for each quarter that emphasize arts integration. Document

review of unit plans and SER team observations of the school’s on-line document filing system,

SharePoint, confirmed that the school provides planning documents and universal access to all units and

lessons developed by staff. Teachers and leadership also reported, and document review of the Faculty

Handbook confirmed, that all lesson plans are required to be posted to the school’s SharePoint system

each Monday morning by 9:00 a.m. Additionally, English for speakers of other language (ESOL) teachers

reported in focus groups that they accessed lesson plans on SharePoint in order to pre-teach content

and skills so that ESOL students can make stronger cognitive connections during core classes.

Teachers design daily lessons that are grade-level appropriate and meet learners’ unique needs.

Document review of lesson and unit plans revealed that all lessons are planned with appropriate grade-

level VSC standards and identify modifications, such as extended time or skill-level grouping. For

example, a 4th grade algebra lesson plan indicated that students will be assigned to different centers

based on their academic readiness; an 8th grade algebra lesson addressed the unique needs of six

specific students who required verbatim instructions and graphic organizers.

Teachers deliver grade-level appropriate content with accuracy. The SER team observed teachers

communicating error-free and accurate information in 96% of classes observed (n=27). Additionally,

content was grade-level appropriate in 85% of classes observed. The SER team also observed that

community service activities supported lesson objectives at the school. For example, students examined

the importance of keeping waterways clean by discussing a story about pollution and talking to peers

about the question, “What does going green mean?” Other students learning about difference gained an

Key action 1.1: Teachers plan highly effective instruction. Effective

Key action 1.2: Teachers deliver highly effective instruction. Developing


understanding of universal similarities while increasing their respect for difference by sharing poems

about themselves and examining similarities and differences.

Teachers do not use multiple strategies and tasks to engage all students in rigorous work. The SER team

observed almost no instructional differentiation at the school during the two days of the visit, the first

half of the first day being one of the school’s Service Days. In observations, students were participating

in different or tiered activities based on their academic readiness in one class, or 4% of classes observed

(n=27). In this classroom, students were examining cause and effect by writing or drawing a story and

were organized into three different groups: one group of ESOL students were dictating to an adult;

another group was involved in a phonics lesson; other students were working independently. Students

were not observed creating different products or assessments that accommodate different academic

needs or learning styles in any of the classes observed. For example, in nearly all classes observed,

students were assigned the same learning task and provided the same amount of time to complete it.

Teachers do not consistently use questioning to bring students to higher-order thinking. Students were

required to compare, contrast and deconstruct in 19% of classes observed. For example, students in one

class were required to explain the differences between pyramids and prisms. Students were required to

synthesize, defend and critique in only 7% of classes observed. In one such class, students participated

in a fishbowl discussion and used whiteboards to explain their thinking and defend their answer.

However, in 70% of observed classes, questions and activities remained at the recall and comprehension

level in which students completed identical worksheets or responded to closed questions from the

teacher.

Teachers use multiple assessments to measure student progress. School leadership and teachers

reported that teachers use the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) to track overall student growth

and Baltimore City Public School System’s (BCPSS) benchmark exams to track student growth as aligned

to the Maryland State Assessment (MSA). They also reported that the school administers the Dynamic

Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), Stanford 10, World class Instructional Design and

Assessment (WIDA), Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation (RISE), teacher-created exit slips, and

Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary and Middle Students (SAGES) to assess for gifted and

talented students. Document review of DIBELS data, BCPSS benchmark data and teacher-developed exit

slips, along with the schools’ Master Tracker, confirmed the use of those assessments.

School leadership ensures teachers are prepared to analyze student assessment data. Teachers and

leadership reported that the fourth Wednesday of each month is dedicated to team level data analysis.

Document review of the school’s professional development calendar confirmed that early dismissal

Wednesdays are reserved for team meetings and that data analysis is the focus on the last Wednesday

of each month. Document review of meeting agendas and the protocols from September 14, 2011

revealed that teachers collaboratively reflect, asking, “What might be causing students to not achieve

these goals?” and considering, “How might you re-teach this concept differently than you already

have?”

The school uses data to identify unique student needs and assign them to support services or

interventions. In a focus group, Title I teachers reported that they cross-reference benchmark, report

card data and teacher assessments on Master Tracker – a data management system connected to the

school’s SharePoint system – to identify struggling students. Document review of Title I teachers’

Key action 1.3: Teachers use multiple data sources to adjust practice. Effective


schedules confirmed that those support teachers provide push-in support 90% of the time and pull-out

support 10% of the time. Teachers and leadership also reported that the school’s Contact Log is an on-

line tool that tracks teacher communication with parents and families as a result of poor student

behavior or performance. Teachers and school leaders reported using these data to identify students in

need of additional supports, enrichment or recommendations to the Student Support Team (SST). For

example, the behavior specialist reported that he followed the data carefully, checks in with students

and, if necessary, refers the student to the SST if a student’s needs are greater than those he can

manage himself. Stakeholders reported that the SST includes teachers, the school counselor and the

school’s social worker. Additionally, teachers stated that data are used to place students in after-school

tutoring classes and Saturday classes for academic support. A focus group with Community Schools – an

after-care provider and related staff – revealed that school data are also used to identify after-school

support or enrichment and acceleration classes. Leadership reported, and students confirmed, that

behavior data are used to pair mentor and mentee students. In a focus group, students reported that

those who have overcome behavior challenges are paired with younger students struggling with

behavior challenges.

School leadership provides professional development aligned to school-wide goals and teacher’s

developmental needs. School leadership and teachers reported that professional development on data

analysis was needed and provided by NWEA. Some teachers described not understanding what data-

driven instruction looked like until receiving that training and that data-driven instruction is now a

regular component of their practice. School leadership and teachers added that the third Wednesday of

each month is reserved for differentiated professional development at which teachers select from a

menu of options most useful to their practice. For example, document review of the November 2011

agenda for professional development showed that teachers could choose from trainings developed by

teachers: Implementing Morning Message; 40 Developmental Assets: Real ways to support success in

the classroom and Developing Learning Centers in the K-8 Classroom.

School leadership provides feedback about the quality of teaching. Teachers and school leadership

reported, and document review of the 2011-12 Observation Calendar confirmed, that the school aims to

conduct twelve observation of each teacher during the school year through formal, informal, peer, and

educational rounds visits. In focus groups, teachers reported that they have been observed between six

and ten times so far during the 2011-12 school year. Teachers reported that they receive feedback via

email or sticky-notes. Some teachers reported that they receive guidance on their instruction. For

example, one teacher shared that he received two weeks of intensive support on developing and

incorporating learning centers into his instruction from an Instructional Support Teacher. Other

teachers, however, reported, and document review of feedback confirmed, that feedback sometimes

lacks specificity and explicit guidance. Teachers did not report receiving feedback on instructional

planning.

School leadership ensures the use of data; however, adjustments to instructional practice based on that

data are in the emerging stage. In focus groups, Title I teachers reported that they emphasized re-

teaching and used data to identify, created and worked with small groups in and out of the classroom.

They reported that recent push-in support focused on fraction and decimal conversion. Document

review of lesson materials confirmed that students used flash cards to play a game to find the greater

value and completed an open-ended exit ticket to determine if the re-teaching intervention had impact

Key action 1.4: School leadership supports highly effective instruction. Developing


that asks students to: “Use what you know about equivalent forms of rational numbers to explain how

you found your answer. Use numbers, words, and/or symbols in your explanation.” However, at the

time of the SER visit, teachers conducted informal checks for understanding aligned to lesson content in

26% of classes observed (n=27). Also, teachers demonstrated evidence of adjusting instruction based on

the results of those informal checks-for-understanding in 0% of classes observed. When asked for

specific examples of adjusting practice based on data in focus groups, teachers were unable to provide

any.

Teachers organize the classroom space and materials to enhance student-learning activities. The SER

team observed bright, well-organized and friendly classrooms. The SER team also observed student

work posted throughout the hallways and classrooms that emphasized academics and art integration.

For example, metaphoric self-portraits were posted alongside the art content standard and the learning

objective. It was also observed by the SER team that all classrooms provided student desk arrangements

that facilitated group and pair work; however, students were observed working in groups or pairs in only

15% of classes observed (n=27).

Teachers implement routines to maximize instructional time. Evidence of student behavioral

expectations was posted in 85% of classes observed. Nearly all classrooms included a mechanism for

assigning student jobs and responsibilities. For instance, labeled popsicle sticks determined who was in

charge of distributing materials or cleaning. Teachers were also observed using timers and chimes to

alert students of time remaining for their tasks. In addition, 89% of classes observed spent less than 10%

of their time on transitions between activities and lessons.

Teachers inconsistently reinforce positive behavior and redirect off-task behavior. Leadership and

teachers reported the use of a tiered system of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS);

however, the SER team did not observe consistent use of the system. For instance, leadership and

teachers reported that some teachers include a bonus blue zone above the green zone on their stoplight

behavior monitors, but the practice is not universal. The SER team did not observe any teacher using this

or a similar mechanism for monitoring student behavior. Additionally, the SER team observed students

standing in the hallway as a consequence for poor behavior. Teacher reprimands in classrooms did not

highlight positive behavior, but emphasized negative behavior. For example, teachers made statements

such as, “If you do that one more time, I’m going to send you out;” or “Do that once more and I will

change your color.” On each of these occasions, teachers did not actually use a stoplight mechanism or

similar tool.

Domain 2: Talented People

The school uses multiple measures to assess each teaching candidate’s alignment with the skills

required for the position. In focus groups, teachers reported that they were required to teach a sample

lesson, participate in a panel interview with staff and participate in telephone interviews with

Key action 1.5: Teachers establish a classroom environment in which teaching and learning can occur.

Developing

Key action 2.1: The school creates and implements systems to select, develop, and retain effective teachers and staff whose skills and beliefs represent the diverse needs of all students.

Effective


administration. However, parents in focus groups reported that they have not been part of the selection

process; no evidence was found that students participate in the selection process.

Teaches participate in the development and retention of teachers and staff. In focus groups, the

leadership team and teachers reported that teachers develop professional development sessions and

participate in peer observations. Teachers reported that teacher-developed professional development is

incorporated into the schedule on the last Wednesday of each month, when teachers can select the

training most relevant to their practice from a list of options (Key Action 1.4). Additionally, school

leadership and teachers reported that there is a mathematics and reading instructional support teacher

who works with staff and participates in team meetings. Document review of the lead teacher

application and focus groups with teachers and leadership confirmed that each grade-level team has a

team leader who leads weekly meetings and serves as liaison between leadership and teachers.

Teachers must apply for the position, which includes a $2,000 stipend.

School leadership celebrates teachers. Leadership and teachers reported that teachers receive notes of

appreciation and candy in their mailbox. Document review of cards sent to Title I teachers thanking

them for their support in the classroom confirmed this practice. Document review of posters in hallways

also confirmed that teachers are acknowledged and celebrated. Each teacher has a poster highlighting

his or her own personal learning story. Leadership and teachers also reported that the school celebrated

a staff person of the month.

School leadership makes difficult personnel decisions. Leadership focus groups and document review of

the School Performance Plan (SPP) and teacher evaluations confirmed that two teachers were dismissed

in the 2010-11 school year for poor classroom management and instruction. Document review of

correspondence between the principal and the dismissed teachers indicated that support plans for the

teachers were developed before dismissal.

When necessary, school leadership provides some support for teachers and staff. Document review of

the staff roster and SER team observations confirmed that the school employs two assistant principals

and two instructional support teachers (IST). Teachers reported that they receive verbal and written

feedback and support on their instructional practice. However, a review of feedback samples provided

to the SER team revealed that the feedback is not grounded in evidence, nor specific or helpful for

adjusting or maintaining effective instructional practice. For example, a sticky note left with a teacher

after an observation read, “What I was most impressed by was your array of questioning that hit higher-

order processes and the pacing and energy of your presentation.” A formal evaluation reads, “The

teacher did a great job of trying to help her assistant grow professionally;” and “The teacher facilitates

learning parties for her future students in the community.” These comments lack specificity and do not

provide guidance for improving or maintaining effective instruction.

School leadership has not yet created structures for feedback and evaluation aligned with school-wide

goals to increase the capacity of teachers. Document review of teacher evaluations revealed that

instructional feedback is not aligned to annual measureable objectives (AMO) or student performance

targets. For example, one satisfactory evaluation reads, “The teacher meets and plans weekly with the

Key action 2.2: The school has created and implemented systems to evaluate teachers and staff against individual and school-wide goals, provide interventions to those who are not meeting expectations, and remove those who do not make reasonable improvement.

Developing


grade-level team. He adheres to school-wide deadlines and submits them to administration every

Monday.”

Domain 3: Engaged Families and Community

School, staff and families feel physically and emotionally safe at the school. In focus groups, teachers

and families reported feeling emotionally and physically safe at the school. In focus groups, students

reported that they feel safe at the neighboring Patterson Park and in the community because it is their

home. Students also reported that they feel safe approaching their teachers with their problems;

teachers confirmed this. Additionally, school staffing documents revealed, and SER team observations

confirmed, that the school has a full-time social worker and a full-time counselor who support students

and families as necessary. Teachers stated that the students know the counselor and social worker and

that the counselor builds relationships with students through classes on health and wellness.

Students, staff and families participate in school activities promoting the school’s culture and climate.

Document review of the school handbook revealed that the school has a rationale for volunteer service

and its effect on the school community and explains how parents, guardians and family members can

contribute to the school. All stakeholders interviewed reported that parents and guardians are

encouraged to dedicate 20 hours of service to the school each year. Document review of the family and

parent log-book confirmed that these service hours are recorded. The school makes a concerted effort

to offer a variety of tasks parents can do, including at home projects to support the school. Leadership,

parents, teachers and students added that parents and guardians participate in fieldtrips, serve as class

representatives and attend school events. For instance, parents attended a fieldtrip to the Holocaust

museum and a corresponding event at the school featuring a Holocaust survivor. Additionally, the SER

team observed a family resource room for parents and guardians, where staff can meet with family

members.

The school recognizes and celebrate students. All stakeholders reported that students are celebrated

with a quarterly honor roll celebration at which students with an 80% to 90% average earn a place on

the honor roll and students with a 90% or higher average earn high honor roll; the Principal’s Award is

given to students who demonstrate the most academic growth. Students also receive certificates, a

fieldtrip to a Baltimore Oriole’s game and an invitation to the “Atten-Dance” for perfect attendance.

Additionally, teachers and leadership reported that the school hosts game and movie night in the

cafeteria, as well as mathematics and literacy night for all community members.

The school uses multiple strategies to communicate with families and community members. Teachers

reported that in addition to the school’s Bird’s Eye View newsletter that features student writing, each

grade level distributes a newsletter for parents and families. Leadership reported that all newsletters

are translated into Spanish and that automated calls are used for important announcements and

updates, such as test administration. Students and parents reported that teachers communicate with

Key action 3.1: The school provides a safe and supportive learning environment for students, families, teachers, and staff.

Effective

Key action 3.2: The school cultivates and sustains open communication and decision-making opportunities with families about school events, policies, and the academic and social development of their children.

Highly Effective


parents via telephone and email; parents reported that many teachers post student grades on-line with

Engrade. Document review of the parent handbook revealed that all relevant information regarding the

school is available to parents. All stakeholders reported that Hands On Patterson Park Public (HOPPP) is

the parent organization through which most parent and family involvement with the school is

conducted. Additionally, document review of the First Thursdays Family Education calendar revealed

that the first Thursday of each month features opportunities for parent and family education. For

instance, Family Reading Night was hosted on November 2, 2011 and a Health and Fitness Night was

held on May 3, 2012. Eight events were held throughout the school year.

The school uses feedback from students and families to improve programs. The community schools

team reported that an annual needs assessment is collected from parents. They stated that the last

needs assessment indicated a need for after-care. In response, the school formed a partnership with

Fitness Fun and Games. Teachers, leadership, and community schools team members reported that

there are more than 200 students who are enrolled in various after-school programs each day.

Document review of 2011 school survey data revealed that the school surveys parents and families

regarding the school’s climate and culture. Leadership and the community schools team also shared that

a skills inventory is collected from parents and families to determine how they may best serve the

school.

Family and community partners are active participants in school events and culture. Leadership and

teachers reported that parents and guardians are encouraged to contribute 20 service hours to the

school. Document review of the Parent Volunteer Log revealed that 87% of parents and guardians are

actively supporting the school with volunteer hours. For example, in focus groups, leadership and board

members reported that parents helped organize the Spring Into Arts event at the school. School

leadership, teachers and board members described the school as a community hub, citing general

education development (GED) and English classes for parents as opportunities for parents to participate

at the school.

School leadership, teachers and staff ensure that school-wide communication takes into account the

cultural and linguistic diversity of school stakeholders. School leadership reported that report cards are

in English and Spanish and that the school newsletter is translated into Spanish. Leadership also

reported that Spanish speaking staff provides one-on-one translations for Spanish speaking parents and

families at the school site.

The school’s curricula reflect a commitment to equity and an appreciation of diversity. Document review

of unit plans revealed that the curriculum is planned by thematic units that incorporate all subjects. In

focus groups, teachers and leadership reported, and the SER team observed, that students were

learning about the Holocaust at the time of the SER visit. Teachers reported that students had visited

the Holocaust museum; the SER team observed that students were reading Number the Stars by Lois

Lowry – a novel about the Holocaust that corresponded with a guest speaker and survivor of the

Holocaust. The SER team observed an immigration unit that included students writing poems about

themselves and examining tolerance and acceptance by identifying the similarities and differences

among each other. Corresponding mathematics classes analyzed and described the influx of immigrants

to the United States by creating bar graphs. Additionally, document review of student work featured

Key action 3.3: The culture of the school reflects and embraces student, staff, and community diversity.

Effective


metaphoric self-portraits and accompanying reflective writing assignments, as well as student interview

activities that promoted self-understanding and positive relationships. Finally, the SER team observed a

guest speaker from Kenya dressed in traditional clothing and sharing cooking and clothing artifacts with

students while telling native stories about Kenya.

Families and community partners provide resources to meet the needs of students and the school.

Document review of the 2011-12 Resource Inventory prepared by the school’s site coordinator includes

59 partner organizations that support the school through resources and programming. All stakeholders

confirmed the school’s robust community partnerships. Teachers and leadership highlighted

partnerships with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Dance Crews, Fitness Fun and Games, and the

Patterson Park Audubon Center. Leadership reported that Johns Hopkins has nine student teachers

working alongside teachers. Teachers reported that the Audubon Center hosts student groups at the

park and provides lessons and activities for teachers before and after park visits.

The school’s teaching staff features a diverse range of experience, though not ethnicity. Document

review of the school’s staffing revealed that 55% of teachers have five or less years of experience, 38%

have between five and ten years of experience and 7% of the school’s teachers have more than ten

years of experience. However, the same document revealed that 83% of teachers are White, while 7%

are Hispanic and 10% are African American. These percentages do not reflect the student population,

which is 70% African American, 19% Hispanic and 10% White.

Domain 4: Strategic Leadership

The school has established rigorous goals for student learning based on the Baltimore City Public

School’s accountability system. In focus groups, teachers and board members shared knowledge of

academic growth targets. Document review of the School Performance Plan (SPP) featured annual

measurable objectives (AMO) for the entire school and each grade level. For instance, the school aims to

reach 91% proficiency in reading and 87.7% in mathematics. Additionally, the SER team observed a

graph measuring progress on performance targets displayed in the principal’s office.

School leadership analyzes and uses data to make decisions about programs and resources. In focus

groups, leadership reported that after a review of mathematics data, changes in the mathematics

curriculum were made to address student weakness. Leadership reported that the school originally used

Everyday Math but, because of low student performance, changed to Saxon Math. Leadership added

that the school now uses Math Works, which is aligned to the BCPSS benchmark assessments Teachers

confirmed that the mathematics curriculum has been modified to address students’ changing

performance on mathematics standards. Additionally, leadership reported that after finding students

struggling with reading comprehension, Fountas and Pinnell (F&P) leveled readers were introduced as

an intervention and support. Leadership also reported that teachers were trained to incorporate the

leveled readers into their instruction.

Families, community members and teachers participate in initiatives to establish school-wide goals, to

improve teaching and learning, and to adjust practice. In a focus group, board members reported that

Key action 4.1: The school establishes growth goals that guide strategic planning, teaching, and adjusting of practice to meet student needs.

Effective


they establish school wide goals with the principal. Parent members of the board reported that they

collect input through HOPPP, which serves as an intermediary to the board for parents and families.

Board members also reported that there is an annual summer retreat at which the strategic plan is

treated as a living document and where revisions and adjustments are made.

School leadership leverages staff expertise by delegating essential responsibilities and decisions to

appropriate individuals. Leadership and teachers reported that ESOL and Title I teachers provide push-in

classroom support for struggling students. Document review of ESOL and Title I teacher schedules

confirmed that these teachers serve students throughout the school day. School leaders and teachers

also reported that teachers with expertise in particular topics deliver professional development to

teachers and staff. For instance, the kindergarten teacher provided training on arts integration through

a grant from Young Audiences, Inc. Leadership and teachers also reported that responsibilities are

delegated through team leaders for each grade level.

Budget distributions and resource allocations support teaching and learning. Leadership and teachers

reported that they have what they need to teach, with some teachers adding that they have more

materials than they need. The SER team observed an abundance of support materials for Title I teachers;

classrooms were fully stocked with supplies for students and teachers. It was also observed by the SER

team that supplies for arts integration are available; student art-work is prominently displayed through

the facility. In focus groups, students, parents, teachers and leadership reported that fieldtrips are an

important component of instruction at the school. Students reported participating in an average of five

fieldtrips per year; school leadership added that fieldtrips were protected from budget cuts. The school

also incorporates data collection systems to manage and analyze data. Teachers and leadership

reported, and the SER team observed that Mastery Tracker is used in conjunction with SharePoint – an

online document management system. Title I teachers reported that Mastery Tracker allows them to

target and support students immediately after their performance is posted. Additionally, teachers and

leaders reported that the school uses Wireless Generation DIBELS to monitor early reading skills.

Community, teachers and staff use their time and talent to address school growth goals. In focus groups,

all stakeholders reported that teachers conduct coach classes after school, at which students can receive

one-on-one support. Students and teachers also reported that teachers conducted electives classes on

Monday afternoons at which teachers bring their own expertise to create a class. For instance, a school

beautification class gives students the opportunity to make repairs throughout the facility; a mural

group plans and paints murals in the neighborhood; also, there is a typing class and a Spanish culture

class. Students reported that they can select a new elective class each quarter. Additionally, community

members reported that the Dance Crews project is facilitated by community members for the students.

Board members also reported that the annual Spring into Art fundraiser features artists from the

community who donate proceeds from their sales to the school. Board members reported that this

year’s art sale raised $20,000 for the school.

Key action 4.2: The school allocates and deploys the resources of time, staff talent, and funding to address the priorities of growth goals for student achievement.

Effective


School leadership facilitates purposeful collaborations that enhance school culture, instruction and

student learning. Teachers and leadership reported, and document review of the school’s professional

development calendar confirmed, that there were weekly meetings for grade-level and content area

teams each Wednesday. The professional development calendar revealed that the first Wednesday of

the month was reserved for meetings with all staff, the second Wednesday was reserved for team

meetings and the third for data analysis; the third Wednesday featured professional development

options for teachers (Key Action 1.4).

Teachers and staff participate in planning and implementation of school events and initiatives. The SER

team observed, and teachers and school leadership reported, that the entire school community

participated in Community Service Day. Students and teachers reported that students planted trees at

Patterson Park and cleared trash from neighborhood streets. The SER team observed that students

made birdfeeders in class to hang in trees at the park. Additionally, the SER team observed the academic

classes aligned with community service day by promoting tolerance and acceptance of differences

through lesson activities. In focus groups, board members and teachers reported that students sell their

art at an annual fundraising event. Teachers also participated in a wide array of activities at the school.

Teachers and leadership reported that teachers attend and chaperoned student dances, participated in

after-school events, such as Football night and Mexican dinner and culture night, and help organize a

lantern parade with one of the school’s partners, Creative Alliance.

The governing board provides strong financial oversight by monitoring the school’s financial records and

ensuring that the school remains fiscally viable. Board members reported, and document review of the

audit report confirmed, that the school had a clean audit and that the school is financially viable. The

executive director reported that the school maintains a $1 million dollar surplus to ensure cash flow and

payment of all bills in a timely fashion.

The governing board maintains effective governance practices to ensure organizational viability,

including systemic oversight of the school leader. Document review of the board manual revealed that

the board has developed a clear code of ethics based on a statement of values describing the board’s

personal and professional integrity, mission, governance, legal compliance, responsible stewardship,

openness and disclosure, program evaluation, inclusiveness and diversity, and fundraising. Focus groups

with board members, the executive director and school leadership confirmed that board members

operate in a committee structure with four standing committees: academic excellence, development,

finance and governance. Board members also shared that the current committee structure is the

product of a recent strategic process with a consultant to reduce the number of committees and to be

more specific and deliberate about their work. Board members added that member role descriptions are

currently being modified to reflect these changes. Additionally, parents, teachers and board members

reported that two parents and two teachers serve as board members.

Key action 4.3: The school provides regular opportunities for teachers and staff to engage in job embedded, collaborative planning and adjustment of practice.

Effective

Key action 4.4: The school’s board of trustees (or operator) provides competent stewardship and oversight of the school.

Highly Effective


The governing board provides strong oversight of the school. In focus groups, board members and

leadership reported that the board establishes school-wide goals in collaboration with the principal and

that board members receive monthly reports on those goals. Board members also reported that they

are aware of mathematics and reading targets and that benchmark and NWEA data are used to measure

progress on those targets. In focus groups, board members and the executive director reported that the

board’s governance committee was developed, in part, to strategically recruit new board members with

specific skills and strengths that will serve the school well. Board members and the executive director

also reported that the board promotes transparency and a collaborative spirit through its public

meetings.


Appendix A: SER Team Members

The SER visit to the Patterson Park Public Charter School was conducted on April 26 and 27, 0212 by a team

of representatives from SchoolWorks and City Schools.

Cheryl Krehbiel, Team Leader. Cheryl is a consultant for SchoolWorks. She is owner of Cheryl Krehbiel

Associates, an educational consulting organization founded in 2011. Prior to this, Cheryl served as Deputy

Chief for Professional Development in the District of Columbia Public Schools and was responsible for the

planning, delivery and implementation of a comprehensive professional development plan to increase the

skills and knowledge of teachers, principals and other school staff so that student achievement improves.

Previously, she worked as Vice President of Edbuild, a DC nonprofit organization and as a Staff Development

Specialist in Montgomery County, Maryland. She coordinated the Teacher-to-Teacher Workshops for the

U.S. Department of Education, which produced numerous on-line offerings as well as face-to-face

workshops at which teachers from across the country could learn from some of the most successful teachers

in the nation in improving student achievement results. Cheryl has consulted with numerous school systems

on issues related to standards, instruction and educational reform with teachers, principals and district

leaders. In addition, she has written for the U.S. Department of Education and Community Update, and

served as a panelist for several Town Hall national broadcasts for the No Child Left Behind legislation. As a

teacher for more than twenty years, Ms. Krehbiel honed skills as a classroom practitioner and has taught in

New York, Delaware, and Illinois schools and served as an adjunct professor at Wilmington College, in

Delaware. She currently holds certification credentials in Elementary and Special Education and Educational

Administration.

Tim O’Brien, Team Writer. Tim is a consultant with SchoolWorks and a doctoral candidate at the Harvard

Graduate School of Education in the Education Policy, Leadership and Instructional Practice strand. Tim

works as a teaching assistant, supporting students in the School Leadership Program and is a facilitator and

trainer for HGSE’s professional education programs, Data Wise and Instructional Rounds. Before returning to

school, Tim worked in the Office of Professional Development at DC Public Schools, where he designed and

facilitated the training for DC’s school-based instructional coaches. He also played a critical role in

implementing DC’s Teaching and Learning Framework and participated in numerous school quality reviews.

Prior to his work in DC, Tim has taught at the elementary, middle and high school level and trained teachers

in public and private schools at home and abroad. Tim holds a B.S. in Secondary English Education from NYU

and an Ed.M. in Learning and Teaching from Harvard University.

Linda Evans, Team Member. Linda has served in the field of education for nine years and as an educator in

Baltimore City Public Schools for over five years. She is a graduate of both Morgan State University and

Johns Hopkins University where she received her Master’s in Teaching. She holds a dual certification in early

childhood and elementary education and is currently an Academic Content Liaison for City Schools’

networks, where she works in a network of fourteen elementary schools providing school support, teacher

coaching and professional development.

Lisa Kane. Lisa is a Senior Associate of The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private philanthropy dedicated to

helping build better futures for disadvantaged children in the United States. In her 16 years at the

Foundation, Lisa has held various assignments focused on services and systems reform; she currently

manages the Foundation’s Baltimore education and early childhood investments. In that role, Lisa develops

and manages Casey’s East Baltimore and citywide education and early childhood agenda and provides

technical assistance and strategic counsel to seed and sustain model programs and promote policy and


practice reforms that ensure Baltimore children are ready for and successful in school. Lisa learns from and

works closely with key foundation, District, non-profit and City colleagues, with considerable attention

recently on advancing efforts to dramatically increase reading by third grade, inspired by the National

Campaign for Grade Level Reading. Lisa also serves on the New and Charter School Advisory Board, as well

as the East Baltimore Community School Board of Directors. She is also an active parent volunteer at the

Baltimore Montessori Public Charter School. Prior to joining the Foundation in 1995, Lisa served as Assistant

Coordinator for Community Health Programs at the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion in

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after working at a health care consulting firm. Lisa,

through volunteering, has helped run Horton’s Kids – a nonprofit organization targeting children in a housing

project in the Anacostia area of Washington, D.C. She also served as board chair of a family support center

at a Baltimore high school. Prior to her work in D.C., Lisa was a Special Assistant to a New York City

Councilwoman as a part of her tenure in the Urban Fellows Program for the City of New York. Lisa holds a

Master’s degree in Public Health from Columbia University.


Appendix B: School Report Comments

Domain 1: Highly Effective Instruction

Our academic team generally thought the feedback from the SER was accurate and will be addressing areas

of need through planning this Summer. This online form is difficult to use. Larger text boxes would lead to a

better experience in providing feedback. The school had expected more concentration on the elements of

our instruction that are unique to the Charter. For example, the SER team were present for one of our

Service Days, but only one of the observers indicated that she entered the classrooms that were engaged in

service or community driven activities. Our service to the community - being "a force for good" as our

strategic plan states it - is incredibly important to the community that founded the school and we expected

it to hold a greater value in the review process.

Domain 2: Talented People

As an administrator, I think there are limitations in the feedback the SER team can give regarding the

provision of teacher feedback. Moving away from the union negotiated rubrics, without the full support of

the Central Office administrators, is an unsustainable path. I find it difficult to suggest that we can hold

individual schools accountable for providing this level of feedback. Our school, like many others, may be

developing in this field, but this rating may be more reflective of the outside negotiations beyond the scope

of the on-site leadership.

Domain 3: Engaged Families and Communities

Page 11 - "The school's teaching staff features a diverse range of experiences.." Listing the staff's

demographics against the student's demographics is concerning. The suggestion is that staff recruitment

should be limited to one set of characteristics does not appear to be the intent of the observation, but could

be misconstrued based on the proximity of the two statements without some additional context for the final

report.

Domain 4: Strategic Leadership

I believe that my Board expected more of a "Charter Effectiveness Review" rather than a "School

Effectiveness Review". This rubric appears to be a standard template, whereas we were given the

impression that more of what makes our school unique would be used in the evaluation. Please give me a

call if you would like to discuss further.

Additional Comments

None

school effectiveness review - baltimore city public … of achievement and accountability division...

Documents