MISSION HILL SCHOOL 67 Alleghany Street, Roxbury, MA 02120 Missionhill@boston.kl2.ma.us S617-635-6384 Fax 617-635-6419

Deborah W. Meier, Co-Principal T, Brian Straughter, Co-Principal

Dr. Thomas W. Payzant, Superintendent February 28'h, 2005 Boston Public Schools 26 Court Street Boston, MA 02108

Dear Dr. Payzant,

Attached please find the School Quality Review for the Mission Hill School and also our Faculty Council's response. The time our community spent organizing for the SQR is useful as it forces us to review our work and identify areas of strength and potential for growth. We have benefited greatly by having an experienced group of educators provide us with such a thoughtful evaluation. Many of their commendations and recommendations are areas we also identified as we prepared for the evaluation.

When you present our SQR report to the joint BPS/BTU Steering Committee, please accept my request to participate in this conversation. Having a dialog together with the written documents will add to understanding the work of Mission Hill School. Please let me know if and how we can make this possible.

Respectfully Sub

Brian Straughter, for the Mission Hill School Community

cc: Charlotte Spinkston, Co-chair / Mission Hill Governance Board

Boston Pbublic Schools 26 Court- Streert, Bosto, MA 02108 Dr. Thomas Payzant, Superintendent Mission Hill School Response to School Quality Review

Introduction

There are many things about Mission Hill School that the team captured during their three day visit. There were many high scores in the report as well as areas that were observed with potential for growth. Out of the five major focus areas, our lowest score was 3.1 and our highest was score 3.5 (an indication that our school is doing quality work).

The team identified in the report that they "learned that everyone places the individual needs and welfare of students at the center of planning and thought; that everyone works incredibly hard and for long hours to realize their shared vision of serving these students; that every member of the community is respected, caring and supportive of each other." These are words that do describe our school. We thank the team for their thoughtfulness.

Following is our response to the School Quality Review report. We have reflected on the many insightful commendations and recommendations to make our school even stronger. While three days is a short amount of time for an outside team to wholly understand our school, our comments here may help produce a clearer picture of Mission Hill School.

Focus Area #1 Vision and Context (3.3) Mission Hill by design is staff governed which forces the principal to give up much of the traditional hierarchy and distribute that leadership among the fulltime teaching staff. It means that teachers must be willing to think and act like a principal in addition to their responsibilities as classroom teachers. It is why the school purposefully shares the responsibilities of the principal with the teachers to make up our Faculty Council. We all own the vision and the long range planning of the school.

Our Statement of Purpose, which was adopted in 1997, still holds strong today. As the SQR team described, "the ideals in this Statement of Purpose are evident in everything the school does." From when parents first come to learn about the school to our weekly Newsletter, our vision of a well educated person and democratic ideals are promoted.

Similarly, our Habits of Mind and Habits of Work are an important part of our vision. Trying to help students, teachers and parents internalize our habits are difficult and take time. We do expect that students will challenge us in many ways; to be feisty and not just compliant. Ongoing discourse helps lead to growth, understanding and better 'h decision making. As observed when the SQR team talked with the 8 grade students, our approach is effective in leading students to use these habits and "think without even knowing." The teams recognized the ease we have promoting Be Kind and the difficulty helping students learn how to Work Hard. Our school uses protocols for giving feedback on quality work; from both students and teachers. We also support the philosophy and practice drafts as an important path leading to quality work. We will investigate how we can be more explicit with students about achieving quality in their work.

Focus Area #2 Governance, Leadership and Budget (3.5) The founding-Planning Committee of the Mission Hill School believed strongly that those most responsible for teaching the students should be in positions for making and implementing important decisions. By placing teachers in these decision making roles, they would have to think beyond their class of students and make decisions based on the best needs of the school. There would be no "us" and "them", as typically observed in many hierarchical schools. Mission Hill would share decision making so the fulltime teachers would buy into the philosophy.

The school was founded on this strong and unusual philosophy and with the caveat that the staff makes all curricular decisions. These are cornerstones-our brick wall. This wall is what makes Mission Hill a strong school for our students (and by extension, for education reform). All of our meetings are open (see exception in Focus Area #4), and we have many documents that govern the school (i.e., Governance Document describes the role of the Faculty Council, Parent Council and Governance Board).

We understand our cornerstones - means of governance - are sometimes difficult for people who are not part of our Faculty Council. The SQR report captured this for "several" parents. The staff is open to suggestions and criticism, but we must keep the decision making to the ones most directly working with the students. We will investigate here how to help families feel more connected.

An area we feel that was difficult for the team to deeply observe the school relates to the many ways in which we examine student work. Five hours are spent each week on student achievement, staff development and school business. Student data is disaggregated and reviewed throughout the year in Work Groups and Houses. We identify how students are progressing in the grades and identify gaps in our practice. We also spend time together to talk about this work school-wide. This is in addition to the daily assessments teachers conduct to document student's needs and progress. See Focus Area #3 for more information.

We recognize there will always be some families that will have "means and expertise" and will get their child additional resources. That goes for any school no matter how effective it may be. We understand this is important for some families, and our school is committed to making sure that all students are achieving regardless of how fortunate their family may be. To ensure that all children receive equitable and adequate resources, we hold a weekly student support meeting staffed by a team of experts-teachers, principal, learning coach, family therapist, psychologist, occupational therapist, and others. These meetings focus on strategies and best practices, and at times outside referrals, that promote a child's success in school. As far as we know, no family feels we are not watching out for their child, and many structures in the school are designed to make sure no child slips through the cracks.

The recommendation to hold training for the selection of students to the Governance Board is excellent. We will also extend this to a training for the entire board.

Focus Area #3 Teaching and Learning (3.1) This is the heart and soul of any school evaluation -how well does the school go about the teaching and learning of students. In many of your comments in this section, and throughout the report, words describe our school as having high standards, helping students develop habits in their learning and taking responsibility for their work. It's wonderful that the team observed these qualities, and we appreciate the addendums from two of the team members. Though this section received a cumulative score of 3.1, our very unique governance design, curricular approach, and organization of the school may not have been adequately understood by all committee members.

We believe our teaching and learning is very strong and our graduate records are impressive. We submitted several documents that describe our evidence of student progress. In a school our size, it does not make sense to have data "disaggregated across sub-groups." We are too small. Thus our information is often school-wide and can be broken down in any ways we wish. Last year, for example, we looked at habits of mind and work by race to help us examine our own biases in assigning grades to students. This important work is continuing this year as part of our professional development.

Student achievement is also monitored through data including reading tapes that occur twice a year; writing samples used to assess student's competency with unassisted work; and BPS math mid-year and end-of-year assessments. These assessments are scored and reviewed by staff to look for patterns in our student's growth throughout the grades. Regular class work and participation is also assessed by each teacher on a daily and on- going basis.

Our professional development work is structured around the principle that teachers are the individuals who know their colleagues work best and are the ones best in the position to assess and improve practice (the tenets of Roland Barth). Thus we do, in fact, present our curriculum plans and methods for documentation each year to each other and interns. And our school is intentionally designed so classrooms are clustered throughout the grades (K-8th grade Houses) so teachers are informed about their colleagues' practice.

Naturally, we understand that there is always room for growth. That is one of the reasons the staff moved to having Work Groups this year. These weekly meetings provide a forum for the necessary conversations about all the important issues. Committees investigate our practice and look for ways to improve student achievement. It is important to clarify that we do not feel the MCAS ELA and Math sections are trivial. We feel our students are being taught appropriate skills to be successful on these assessments. We also do some test preparation so students feel prepared for this standardized test. We have dedicated a series of professional development meetings this winter to this important topic.

Focus Area #4 Ongoing Professional Development and Support (3.5) Professional Development at Mission Hill begins with staff spending 5 hours together each week, three weeks during the summer and a weekend retreat in the winter. This commitment far exceeds the BPS contract of 18 hours during the year and 2-3 days at the beginning and end of year.

Much of the collegiality the team observed during the visit is a direct result of our strong commitment to be responsible to and for each other. The Responsive Classroom and An Ethic of Excellence the team referenced describe two of the ways we dig deeper into our work-and into the work of our colleagues.

Our professional development is open to all staff except when the Faculty Council needs to discuss staffing issues or fiscal integrity. The general understanding for all support staff is that they will attend all staff meetings unless there is a conflict with their university or some other outside commitment.

Our Peer Review process has developed into a tool that is highly recognized across the nation. The question of how "adequately prepared to support and evaluate colleagues" is often asked about this process. Through our hard work, a willingness to be open with each other, and time, we have created a tool where we feel tough questions are raised and practice is affected. This is another way that we are responsible for our staff governance. Assistant teachers (mostly student teachers) are evaluated by their cooperating teacher-as is the practice with all higher education institutions. We do, in addition, release a staff member who gives additional support to student teachers, and who also attends meetings at one of our partnering universities.

Focus Area #5 Family/Community Outreach and External Partnerships (3.2) Family As noted by the report and our founding principles, we are firm on the philosophy and teaching practices of the school. It is both what makes the school strong and also what may feel difficult to some parents. We feel it is less that the "vision gets blurred around issues of philosophy and curricular implementation," than it is a disappointment that another decision has been reached. As the report indicates. "Some families feel as though conversations happen but are not acted upon." The Faculty Council receives feedback on many levels; from support staff, parents, students, the district, the state, and national media. The Faculty Council balances this feedback with our professional judgment regarding what is best for our 163 students. Sometimes it means we are influenced by parents and change practices. For example, we used to keep students in one House for their entire schooling at Mission Hill. Families requested that the school change this organizational structure so students could potentially change Houses. We made this change. We do listen, at the teacher and administrative level, and ultimately make decisions based on what is best for all students.

We do make ourselves as open and receptive as possible. Most of our parents are satisfied, including the ones who raised issues-as indicated in the report. Our outreach to families consists of writing a four-page newsletter every week, three written reports, two conferences and several informal and formal meetings throughout the year. Teachers converse with families on the telephone and email frequently. We also distribute our home telephone numbers and email addresses widely. The school holds family events at least every other month and many families join us on our retreats and at conferences. We will investigate other ways to reach out to families, and that may mean some of the current practices will be replaced.

Community Outreach and External Partnerships We have a wonderful relationship with New Mission High School. Our students participate on thdir athletic teams and our older students used to participate in high school electives (before Mission Hill was changed to the later school starting time). New Mission students work in Mission Hill classrooms and in our art room during their elective periods. It has been a pleasure to share the building with such a caring school.

The report states that, "several staff members indicated a need to re-establish connections with particular departments in the BPS." We are confused by this statement. The school works with all departments in the BPS that are appropriate for our school, and we understand that no additional personnel would be assigned to Mission Hill.

Summary

It has been extremely valuable to have five educators visit our school and offer their outside perspective. While the SQR is a short visit for the school, it is a considerable amount of time for team members to take out of their busy schedules. The Mission Hill community respects the experiences and backgrounds of this talented group and the report that has been produced for our school.

As the School Quality Review will no longer be a tool that is used by the School Committee to renew Pilot status to schools, Mission Hill School does support its continued use. As pilot schools are given increased autonomy over other district schools, it is important to keep this tool for assessing the effectiveness of these schools and their autonomies. Center for Collaborative Education

1135 Tremont Street, Suite 490 Boston, MA 02120

January 14, 2005

Dr. Thomas Payzant, Superintendent Boston Public Schools 26 Court Street Boston, MA 02108

Dear Dr. Payzant:

I am pleased to share with you the 2004 School Quality Review Report for the Mission Hill School. A group of five team members contributed to this report. The team members are:

Liana Bond Kindergarten Teacher, Young Achievers Pilot School, Jamaica Plain, MA

Hollee Freeman Field Director, Boston Teacher Residency Program, Boston, MA

Lenora Jennings Executive Director, Benjamin Banneker Charter School, Cambridge, MA

Steven Levy School Designer, Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, Garrison, NY

Sylvia Soderberg, Early Childhood Resource Specialist and Reading Recovery Team Chair Teacher, Cambridgeport School, Cambridge, MA, retired

The Review was held on October 19, 20, and 21, 2004. The team was remarkably compatible, and it worked efficiently and cooperatively to provide the enclosed information, and commendations and recommendations for each focus area of the School Quality Review. We recommend that the school continue and be supported in its work as a Boston Pilot School, and we hope that the faculty, staff, and administration of this exemplary school will find our comments useful in their future planning.

Respectfully submitted,

Sylvia Soderberg, Team Chair

Tel: 51 7.421.0134 www.ccebosorg Fax: 617.421.9016 School Quality Review Report Mission Hill School

Preface

The Review Team thanks the entire community of the Mission Hill School for its open-hearted and generous welcome to us during our three-day visit. The School Review is a rigorous and strenuous time for all, but the students, faculty and staff, administration and parents were all so willing to share their lives and work with us, so anxious that we come to know them, that we felt like members of this warm, dedicated and loving family. And as members, although three days is a very small time in which to try to learn everything about a school, we began to understand "The Mission Hill Way". We learned that everyone places the individual needs and welfare of students at the center of planning and thought; that everyone works incredibly hard and for long hours to realize their shared vision of serving these students; that every member of the community is respectful, caring and supportive of every other.

It was our great privilege and honor to be in this visionary community, even for a short time. We were deeply moved and we felt the joyful burden that such high ideals place upon us as reviewers. We hope that our efforts will be received in the spirit in which they are given: we hope to help this mission on a hill to grow ever higher, in order to serve the students even more powerfully. Introduction

The information contained in this report is drawn from observations in meetings and in classrooms, and from conversations with students, teachers, and parents during the three-day School Quality Review visit from October 19th through 21st, 2004. The procedure will be discussed in the Data Collection section of the report. Our interactions with the community were graced by its extraordinary willingness to open itself to our scrutiny. Its openness and idealism made us eager to support its work as much as possible. In this spirit, the purposes of this report are:

> To validate and support the extraordinary vision and work of the Mission Hill School

> To offer some different perspectives and insights from educators outside of the school, which may guide future planning

> To provide the Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools, the School Committee and other stakeholders with information, observations, and inferences about the Mission Hill School which might help them in supporting and guiding it toward realizing its goals

Five people comprised the School Quality Review Team:

Liana Bond Kindergarten Teacher, Young Achievers Pilot School, Jamaica Plain, MA

Hollee Freeman Field Director, Boston Teacher Residency Program, Boston, MA

Lenora Jennings Executive Director, Benjamin Banneker Charter School, Cambridge, MA

Steven Levy School Designer, Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, Garrison, NY

Sylvia Soderberg, Early Childhood Resource Specialist and Reading Recovery Teacher, Team Chair Cambridgeport School, Cambridge, MA, retired Data Collection

In the spring and summer of 2004, prior to the team's visit to the school, Mission Hill staff conducted a self-study using the Boston Pilot Schools' Self-Study Guide. From the results of the self-study, the school produced portfolios of evidence in each of the five focus areas: 1. Vision and Context, 2. Governance, Leadership and Budget, 3. Teaching and Learning Goals and Results, 4. Ongoing Professional Support and Improvement, and 5. Family/Community Outreach and External Partnerships. Prior to the school visit, Julie Drogin from the Center for Collaborative Education provided the SQR team with an orientation to the entire SQR process, the Boston Pilot Schools, and in particular, the Mission Hill School. Each member of the team took home one of the school's portfolios and studied it as thoroughly as possible in preparation for the review.

During the school visit, we studied and discussed all of the portfolios, as well as the generous volume of other materials provided by the school, including students' work in classrooms, fifth grade Recollections, portfolios in the Archives, Eighth Grade Graduation Portfolios, the self- study, and current and back issues of the Mission Hill News.

Much of our three-day visit was spent in classrooms. We visited and observed in all of them, either individually or in small groups, spending at least thirty minutes in each one. The teachers generously welcomed individual discussions about their classes and their teaching, their philosophies, and their hopes for their students. We met with them whenever they had time - after school and during lunch and recess breaks.

We were given many opportunities to meet with the various constituencies of the school, including two formal meetings, numerous informal meetings and after-school work groups with the staff. We met formally with members of the Governing Board as well as with a group of parents. We shared a luncheon conversation with the co-principals, who were as generous with their time for other informal conversations as were the teachers, despite their busy schedules. We were invited to observe a Student Support Meeting, which gave insight into the impressive structures which are in place to support students who need extra attention. A high point in our visit was a lively conversation with all of the eighth grade students. Reaching Conclusions and Writing the Report

As we studied the Focus Area portfolios and the other literature and artifacts provided by the school, the team members met both formally and informally to share our observations, information and reactions. We asked questions and clarified various points through discussions with members of the Mission Hill community. With the help of Julie Drogin and Dawn Lewis from the Center for Collaborative Education, we made notes on each of the five focus areas, which would guide our deliberations and, later, the writing of this report.

On the last day of the visit we used the rubric in the SQR Self-Study Guide to determine ratings in each focus area. Final scores were reached through extensive deliberations and finally by averaging the individual scores which each team member gave. We then met with the entire MH staff after school to share some of our impressions, including our recommendation that the school continues its work as a Boston Pilot School.

Each of the team members wrote one of the focus area reports in draft form. When the drafts were completed, they were compiled and edited by the chairperson with assistance from the CCE coaches. Lastly, the team members read and offered suggestions to ensure that the report represented every member's opinions.

The guidelines in the SQR Team Handbook present the following rubric for ratings in each Focus Area:

A "4" indicates that the school is exemplary in its performance in this area.

A "3" indicates that the school is performing well in this area. Recommendations are provided for continued improvement, but are not required.

A "2" indicates that, while not deficient, there are specific concerns in this area and there is substantial room for improvement. Specified action steps are provided to the school which must be addressed.

A "1" indicates that little progress has been made in this area, and there are significant concerns. Specified action steps are provided to the school which must be addressed within a specific period of time. Profile of the School

The Mission Hill School, located in the Mission Hill neighborhood, was founded in 1997 as a Boston Public Pilot School. It serves approximately 170 students in grades Kindergarten through eighth grade in small, multi-aged classrooms of less than twenty students each.

As of June 2003, 171 students were enrolled. 94% were in regular education, 5.2% were in special education, and 0% were in programs which serve English Language Learners. The racial make-up was: 57.9% Black, 22.2% White, 15.2% Hispanic, and 3.5% Asian.

The school has three governing bodies: the Faculty Council, which includes the two co- principals and full-time core faculty members, makes academic, curriculum and staffing decisions; the Mission Hill Governing Board, which includes parents, staff, students, and members of the largercommunity, makes broader policy decisions, and the Parent Council, to which all parents belong. Deborah Meier has resigned as principal, although she intends to stay on and continue to be a presence in the school. Her co-principal, Brian Straughter, will continue as acting principal, as the school makes decisions about its ongoing leadership.

The relationship between school and parents is strongly emphasized. In addition to parent resources the school has relationships with many Boston-area cultural organizations and universities, which enrich the school's curriculum. The curriculum is built around interdisciplinary themes which involve the whole school, with emphasis on the integration of the arts.

The school uses multiple assessment strategies, preferring not to rely primarily upon standardized tests. Each student maintains a yearly portfolio of work. Staff reviews, reports, interviews and family conferences concerning this work form the ongoing assessment system. A Graduation Committee consisting of teachers, family members, and members of the community formally assesses each eighth grader's readiness for high school work, using the school's formal Graduation Standards. The school has graduated four classes as of this report. Focus Area #1: VISION AND CONTEXT

The Mission Hill School's statement of purpose is a beautifully articulated piece of philosophy, which sets high goals and obligations for education in a democratic society. It was adopted from the ideas of the original planning committee through much discussion among parents, staff and the Board during the school's first year in operation. This process exemplifies the school's commitment to the democratic ideals. The entire community is involved in important decisions.

The document begins:

"The task of public education is to help parents raise youngsters who will maintain and nurture the best habits of a democratic society - be smart, caring, strong, resilient, imaginative and thoughtful. It aims at producing youngsters who can live productive, socially useful, and personally satisfying lives, while also respecting the rights of all others. The school, as we see it, will help strengthen our commitment to diversity, equity and mutual respect."

It goes on to discuss the requirements of the citizens of a democracy: "Democracy requires citizens with the capacity to step into the shoes of others, even those we most dislike, to sift and weigh alternatives, to listen respectfully to other viewpoints with the possibility in mind that we each have something to learn from others...It requires also the skills and competencies to be well informed and persuasive -to read well, to write and speak effectively and persuasively, and to handle numbers and calculations with competence and confidence."

It speaks of the importance of being informed about art, and also of being able to perform and make art. The last paragraph contains a powerful line: "We must deal with each other in ways that lead us to feel stronger and more loved, not weaker and less loveable."

The ideals in this statement of purpose are evident in everything the school does. They guide its decisions and they are the foundation of its Habits of Mind and its motto. They are at the heart of the community's respectful and caring ways of expressing and listening. They are present in the music and art which are a palpable presence in the school. The words "to help parents" are weighty. The school reaches out to parents strongly, and has expectations that they will be involved and active in their children's academic lives. They are required to attend an orientation to the school before their children can be admitted.

The Mission Hill School's Habits of Mind and Habits of Work reflect its Statement of Purpose. They are an approach to becoming a well-educated person. Briefly, the Habits of Mind are: Evidence (How do we know what is true andfalse?), Viewpoint (How else might this look if we stepped into other shoes?), Connections (Cause and Effect; Is there a pattern? Have we seen something like this before?), Conjecture (Supposing that? What if?), and Relevance (Does it matter? Who cares?). The Habits and the school motto, Be Kind Work Hard,are a guide for thought and action in academic disciplines and in everyday life. They are visible in all areas of the school, posted in hallways and in every classroom. Students' writing in classroom pieces, portfolios and fifth grade Recollections reflects the centrality of the Habits of Mind. They are standards on the Report Cards and Incident Reports, and they are ubiquitous in all editions of the Mission Hill School News. The impressively articulate eighth grade students expressed that by the time they have reached eighth grade, they have so internalized these habits that they feel that reminders are not even necessary.

The Habits of Work are described as meeting deadlines, being on time, sticking to a task, not gettingfrustrated quickly, hearing out what others say, and more. Although the MH report card contains a section on Habits of Work, they are less visible throughout the school than are the Habits of Mind and the school motto. The SQR team wasn't sure that the meaning of the words Work Hard is made truly explicit for all students and parents, and embedded in the way the Habits of Mind are. While we saw evidence of students working hard, we wondered if their efforts could be more effective if the expectations for quality work were more explicit. We also saw evidence of some students not heeding the motto, and not adhering to the original and only rule of MH: Do nothing to stop a learnerfrom learning or a teacherfrom teaching. It might help the school to look at ways to more consistently hold students accountable to these expectations.

Parents spoke positively of the school's commitment to art and music, and to self-expression in general. One said that MH is the "best school in the city". At the same time, they felt that although their children are well-prepared in most respects for secondary school - excellent thinkers and writers - the school's vision of producing students who "write effectively and handle numbers and calculations competently and confidently" does not extend to teaching specific reading, writing and math skills consistently and effectively. Perhaps more effective communication between the school and parents about the school's pedagogy would increase parents' understanding of how the academic aspects of the school's mission play out in classroom activities. Commendations:

* The school's shared vision is clearly articulated, and is understood by all of the school's administration and staff.

* The Habits of Mind and the School Motto are clearly, simply, and accessibly stated, and visible everywhere in the school.

* The teachers keep the Habits of Mind present in the work of the classrooms, and classroom discussions and students' writing reflect this presence.

* Obvious efforts are made to acquaint the parents with the mission and the Habits of Mind through the Mission Hill School News and the Parent Council, to which all parents belong.

* Parents are required to attend an orientation meeting before their children can be accepted officially into the school. The school tries to give them as much information as it can about its philosophy and its expectations for families. The information seems clear.

* The faculty and staff are completely devoted to the school's vision, and they model the Habits for their students consistently. Their devotion is expressed in their meetings, in their interactions with each other and students, and in their decision-making practices.

* Most of the students express their understanding of the school motto and the rule about not interfering in teaching and learning by listening respectfully and being helpful to each other. Most seem to understand how to work hard. The Habits of Mind are embodied in their writing and their discussions, as directed and guided by the teachers.

* The availability of office space for study and work is a unique example of the school's commitment to democratic ideals. It is not just a place to be sent when there-is a problem. Recommendations:

* Given the beauty and power of the Statement of Purpose, perhaps it should be displayed more prominently throughout the school and embedded in the curriculum. Families say that they know what the vision is, but they can't articulate it. * While most students act upon the philosophy of MH, some clearly do not. Work may need to be done on increasing the students' consistency in using the statement of purpose, the motto and the "original rule" as guides for behavior.

* Establish some systems and structures which more clearly articulate the academic expectations for each student and align them with the mission statement. What does Work Hardmean? How do we make it happen? What does it look like at each grade level? Finally, under what circumstances might the staff decide that the school is not the right placerhent for a student who seems to be too challenged, not challenged enough, or too challenging?

* It would be helpful if the orientation practices were documented. It is not clear what happens during the parent/student orientation prior to attending the school.

* The team recommends that with the upcoming change in leadership, the staff seriously consider whether the school's practice of not taking new students in middle school, combined with attrition, is financially sustainable, as well as whether this practice maintains or contradicts the school's mission to serve the same demographics as the system at large.

Rubric Scores

Articulation of Vision and Expectations 3.4

Intake Practices 3.4

Ownership of Vision 3.0

Total for Vision and Context 3.3 Focus Area #2: GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP AND BUDGET

The governing bodies of the Mission Hill School are fully representative of the school's families, community, staff, and students. The visiting team met with members of each of the three governing bodies, the Governing Board, the Faculty Council and the Parent Council. In addition, we observed a weekly business meeting where staff members, including interns and para- professionals, were in attendance.

The Governing Board is comprised of five parents, five community members, five staff, and two students. They meet approximately 3-4 times per year. Their major responsibilities are to approve the budget, staffing plan, and conduct the evaluation and selection of the principals.

The Faculty Council iscomprised of all full-time classroom teachers, the office manager, and the co-principals. This body addresses issues pertaining to academics, pedagogy, and operations. Decisions about hiring and firing are made by the Council in consultation with parents.

All parents are members of the Parent Council. There is an expectation that one representative from each homeroom meet as the Parent Council monthly. During conversations with parents and staff it was evident that fundraising is one area of focus. Parents are also attempting to publish a parent newsletter with more regularity.

While the role of the Governing Board is outlined above, Mission Hill defines itself as a staff- governed school. It appeared to the visiting team that when topics come before the board, the faculty has already discussed them at length. That may leave little left for the board to do but approve. Two major policies decided on by the board in the past have centered on the school's position on MCAS and its co-principal model. Both issues will continue to be reviewed since the Boston Public Schools (BPS) and the Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) expectations for MCAS may be contrary to Mission Hill's, and one of the co-principals is retiring this fall.

As one of the co-principals is retiring this year; the question about the future of co-principals is surfacing again. Faculty has a vested- interest in what will be decided. During our visit there was at least one evening meeting held off-site to discuss the long-term future leadership model at Mission Hill. It was not clear if this was a formal committee of the Parent Council, Governing Board, or the Faculty Council or just a meeting of concerned staff. This seems like a critical time for the Governing Board to step forward and take the lead in these discussions.

Parents have multiple forums to address an array of issues: the Governing Board, the Parent Council and individual meetings with teachers and principals. However, during our meeting with parents several indicated that they are often met with a "brick wall" when they bring up issues or practices that run contrary to procedures and existing practices at Mission Hill. Examples of issues raised by parents included grade-by-grade expectations in math (one parent hired a tutor for her daughter), daily opportunities for writing (another parent provides writing opportunities at home), and preparing students for external assessments (this parent will make sure her second child participates in MCAS, as her first child did not and had difficulty in high school).

The team feels that the academic issues parents discussed were fundamental to student performance and should not be ignored by the school. The parents to whom we spoke were fortunate to have the means and expertise to ensure their children were getting what they needed. We wonder about the other students whose families don't have the means and/or expertise. Who's watching out for them? Faculty and principals should consider the process they use to respond to critical issues raised by parents and the impact these issues have on the achievement of all students.

It is important also to mention that the same parents who referred to the "brick wall" also said that "this is one of the best schools in Boston" and that whatever they had issues with didn't change that feeling.

Additionally, the visiting team met with eighth grade students, two of whom are on the Governing Board. Students feel included and accepted by the board; however, they also expressed some confusion about how to garner ideas from their peers and bring them to the board for action. Board representation is one of the major opportunities students have to voice issues important to them. Mission Hill should consider a training component to the election/selection of student board members to better prepare them for board membership.

The school's leadership encourages and develops the leadership of others. There were many examples of teachers taking on leadership roles. One staff member facilitated the business meeting; another staff member was released from teaching duties this year to spearhead the School Quality Review process and other school projects. As a result of the school's commitment to leadership training, many teachers now have their principal certification. The school's leadership keeps the vision for the whole school community at the forefront of the school's agenda. The Habits of Mind are prevalent everywhere, in classrooms, embedded in documents (e.g., the incident report), and articulated by students as a way they think without even knowing it. This is one example of the school's success in developing habits that will have a lifelong impact on students' learning.

We applaud the school for the pioneering work done with portfolios. Eighth graders are required to present these portfolios to an outside audience. Each student is assigned an advisor to help them prepare their presentation. The collection of student work provides a history and perspective of student performance. In addition, students take this authentic assessment process quite seriously.

With that said, there is little evidence that the school uses achievement data generated from either internal or external assessments to monitor student achievement or plan instructional improvement, nor was there any indication that they plan to start. It is obvious that the faculty and leadership is dedicated and committed to the school, the mission and the vision. They are also professional and thoughtful educators. The visiting team recommends that the school identify assessments that are aligned with the mission and vision of the school to assure internal constituents and external partners that the school is responsive to the needs of diverse learners and that all students are achieving. This is a fundamental responsibility of public education.

Commendations:

* The Mission Hill School has structures in place to include parents, staff (teachers, para- professionals and interns), community members and students in the governing of the school. * Stipends are provided to faculty for the hours of additional time which they put into meeting. This helps enable everyone to think as an administrator, and to be in the habit of meeting often to discuss and make decisions about their work. * The Mission Hill School News, published weekly, covers timely school topics and classroom news. School leaders and staff write lead articles. The visiting team commends the school on all the work and effort that goes into the newsletter. * The weekly business meeting gives staff a forum to present items and an immediate voice at the decision-making table. * The archiving of student work is outstanding and builds a history and perspective of achievement. * Monthly family nights are an excellent way to reach out to the community and share work and practice. * There are multiple opportunities for staff to take on leadership roles. Many staff members are certified principals.

Recommendations:

* There are multiple structures in place to include all constituents in governance, including documents of polices that govern the school. Mission Hill should consider collecting and publishing all the policies (e.g., a Governance Manual) that govern the school and make them available to parents, staff, and community members. * While the visiting team commends Mission Hill on having students on the governing board, we recommend that a training component be part of the election/selection process to prepare students to be active and engaged members of the Board. * During the meeting with parents, many expressed delight with the school, saying it was one of the best public schools in Boston. Parents stated that they are able to talk to leaders and faculty; however, when issues of practice, pedagogy or philosophy come up they are often met with a "brick wall". The visiting team recommends that the school leaders examine the processes they use to effectively respond to critical issues raised by parents that affect student achievement. * The visiting team values student work and collection and archiving of portfolios is commended. At the same time the visiting team could not identify how other data was used to monitor student achievement. The team recommends that Mission Hill begin collecting and monitoring student achievement data to ensure each student is growing and developing; moreover, that teachers look at data and modify strategies to meet the diverse needs of all students. Rubric Scores

Governance Clear Policies and Procedures 3.5

Representative Governance 4.0

Accessibility. 3.0

Effective Communication

Effective Decision Making 3.4

Leadership Using Data

Effective Communication 3.3

Organization and Follow-Through

Keeping and Modeling the Vision 3.7

Developing Leadership in Others 4.0

Budget

Fiscal Responsibility 4.0

Budget Supports Vision 4.0

Total for Leadership, Governance and Budget 3535 Focus Area #3: TEACHING AND LEARNING

It has been four years since the last School Quality Review team visited Mission Hill, and we are pleased to confirm that evidence of the passionate focus on teaching and learning we read about in their report was abundant in our visit to the school this year.

From the entrance to the school, through the halls, and in the classrooms, the honoring of students and quality work is apparent. The walls are replete with bright murals, framed and labeled illustrations, writings and reflections, principles and standards, all visible expressions of what this community values. Every classroom is adorned with student work. Actually, adorned is not the best word, because the work on the walls is not decorative, but rather reflective of high standards, guiding principles, individual and collective work, meaningful symbols and artistic beauty. The natural world enlivens many classrooms, where thriving greenery and curious creatures delight our senses. The school environment has been designed with attention and care to honor the spaces where people come to learn.

Teachers' work is displayed alongside students'. This is significant because it represents a principle we saw throughout the school - that the adults in the community hold themselves to the same challenging standards they expect of their students. Mission Hill is observably a place where teachers and students share ownership and strive together to create a democratic, learning community.

The curriculum at Mission Hill is teacher constructed and student driven. The theme of democracy is woven into every classroom. The Habits of Mind permeate discourse, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly. Posters of these Habits of Mind are present in every classroom (incongruously generic, computer generated ones, in contrast to the artistic representation of class rules and school values). Eighth graders we met reported their surprise in realizing that they use these habits all the time, without even thinking about it! (That's pretty good evidence they have become habits.) There is a culture in classrooms we visited, particularly in the upper elementary and middle school, where students present their work and give each other feedback. They listen respectfully and seem at ease in sharing (and receiving) both warm and cool feedback. Students take responsibility for their own work. Teachers have crafted projects and lessons that seem relevant and meaningful to students.

Mission Hill is a community with a healthy caution for "systems." They understand how systems can become ends in themselves, rather than means to achieve a higher goal. They avoid generic programs, bureaucratic procedures, and mindless protocols they feel would inhibit individual expression or encumber the creative life and spirit of learning. This is in many ways what makes the school such a powerful community. But the honoring of individual creativity and choice also presents a challenge to the community as a whole. What practices, vocabulary, standards, and procedures can students expect to be consistent throughout the school? Clearly, the Habits of Mind and the principles of Be Kind Work Hardpermeate the entire school. The portfolio requirements also provide a consistent school-wide standard. The curriculum themes are structured, and everyone designs lessons and projects based on these themes. Everyone begins the morning with meeting time, and more and more teachers are introducing processes for discussing quality, and revising work. All these school-wide practices are commendable.

But the committee also saw inconsistent enforcement of class rules, and varied quality of instruction. We applaud the schedule that allows for long blocks of classroom teaching time, but some committee members observed ineffective use of that time. We saw little evidence of specific, school-wide protocols and vocabulary describing quality work. We saw many examples of Be Kind made visible, but we did not see as clearly the criteria, examples, or vocabulary that describes Work Hard and its offspring, Quality Work. Should teachers develop a common language, for example, for teaching reading comprehension strategies (i.e. asking questions, inference, determining importance, synthesis, etc.)? Should they develop a common language for teaching the components of writing (i.e. ideas, organization, style, conventions, etc.)? More importantly, would students benefit from a consistent approach as they travel from one grade to another? It's not that we didn't see teachers addressing reading and writing strategies in their classrooms, but rather that the conversations we observed tended to be generic, covering many components at the same time, not focused on particular qualities for improvement, and lacking any component of explicit instruction. We wonder if more varied instructional strategies would benefit the diversity of student learning styles. We did see a poster in one class, "Hooks For Introductions" that demonstrated exemplary leads in writing. But even there, we did not see criteria spelled out that described the qualities of a good lead (i.e. captures readers attention, makes the reader curious, raises a provocative question, etc.). Could students benefit from such common criteria? Would it help them develop vocabulary that would sharpen their self- evaluations, peer critiques, and revisions of their own work? Would they be more likely to become proficient if these criteria were consistent across grades? These are questions we hope you will consider. Commendations:

* Student (and teacher) work is visible in halls and classrooms. There is a minimum of commercially produced materials. This is a school that honors and encourages quality, beauty, and the creativity of its members. * Portfolio requirements define what students are expected to achieve and guide curriculum and instruction. Support systems are in place to help every student succeed. * Curriculum is focused on school-wide themes. Teachers design projects and activities that make these themes relevant to their students. * Schedules provide flexible blocks of time to optimize learning in depth. Teachers are given much autonomy in organizing the day. * Archives of student work are honored with museum status and even given their own room! * School tenets be Kind Work Hard permeate school culture. * Structures are in place and commitment is strong to sustain the ongoing conversation about teaching and learning - to measure and hone practices and policies to reflect the mission of the school. * Expertise and commitment of the student support team are outstanding. The process for discussing students is thorough and precise. * Assessment is performance-based. Mission Hill provides a powerful alternative to MCAS in demonstrating what students know and can do. Real understanding, character, and passion for learning are not sacrificed for skills that can be measured on a single test.

Recommendations:

* Make criteria for quality work and working hard more visible. We saw lots of visual evidence to support Be Kind, but little about what it means to Work Hard. * Focus instruction on specific learning objectives. "Less is more" is as relevant to single lessons as it is to the whole curriculum. Many classrooms we visited had rich discussions about reading and writing, but so many topics were raised that it was difficult to see how students would be guided to practice specific skills that lead to quality work. There is an important role here, especially for particular students, for more "explicit instruction." * Document curriculum project plans. A more thorough and standard curriculum plan could help align project activities with learning goals and evidence of understanding. It could also be useful to new teachers meeting this curriculum or grade level for the first time, and to experienced teachers who want to revise and improve their work. We saw a drawer with abundant resources from past projects, but no coherent plans that describe the learning goals, the sequence of activities, the guiding questions or the products and assessments. * Teachers could learn something important from external assessments. MCAS, particularly the language arts and math sections, are not trivial and demand the kind of thinking consistent with the Habits of Mind. There is no reason Mission Hill students shouldn't perform well, and thus give further credence to the power of your ideas. We think the school could benefit from some external assessments to complement the rich array of internal evaluations of student work. * Internal assessments seemed varied and inconsistent from one class to another. We recommend you explore ways to bring more consistency to your internal assessments. * Document progress. Often when the committee asked for evidence, we were given generalities ("We know our students do really well in writing in high school") or anecdotes. Stories are powerful, broad statements that reflect conviction, but a skeptical public needs to see the data, especially in a school as internally designed as Mission Hill. * Use data to inform instructional practice. We did not see any evidence of data disaggregated across sub-groups. Nor did we see examples of item analysis to pinpoint specific concepts or skills that might impede student achievement. * Mission Hill has successfully created an authentic audience for student work within the school. Why not design learning projects where students create products that serve wider community needs?

Rubric Scores:

Curriculum and Instruction High Standards 2.8

Coherence 2.7

Structure to Support Learning 3.1

Effective Instruction 3.0 Looking at and Reviewing Student and Teacher Work 3.0

Tone of the Classroom and School 3.7

Relationship Between Students, Teachers, and Parents 4.0

Assessment 2.8

Equity and Access Academic Rigor 2.6

Access and Opportunity 3.4

Student Supports 3.3

Results BPS Performance Indicators 3.5

Data-based Planning 2.0

Achievement and Equity 2.8

Total for Teachine and Learnine Addendum to School Quality Review Report for Mission Hill School Re: Focus Area #3: Teaching and Learning January 2005 Steven Levy

I want to submit an addendum to Focus Area #3: Teaching and Learning, of the School Quality Review report. I wholeheartedly agree with all of the commendations and recommendations described in the report, however I feel our composite score, the mean of our individual assessments, does not accurately reflect the quality of teaching and learning at Mission Hill School. All the classes I saw demonstrated strong cultures of learning with a consistent focus on quality work. Interactions between teachers and students, and even more importantly, between students and students, were marked by respect, appreciation, and challenge to improve. We all visited different classes at different times and thus saw a variety of activities, so it is not surprising that our scres in this area might vary depending on the particular lessons we observed. However, with all due respect to my colleagues' judgment, I feel our composite assessment of the school in this category is low.

My primary reason for offering this addendum is grounded in the language of the rubric, which states that: a "2" indicates that, while not deficient, there are specific concern s in this area and there is substantialroom for improvement. Specified action steps are provided to the school which must be addressed.

Whereas there is certainly room to grow, and I think the recommendations in the report offer some specific suggestions, I do not think a composite score in the "2's" for any of the categories of teaching and learning reflects the quality of work I observed. Furthermore, the school has a strong culture of critique, and various structures to ensure continuous reflection. It would be presumptuous for us to specify action steps that "must be addressed." I am convinced the school has been thoughtful and responsible in addressing the areas that we scored low, and that our differences have more to do with philosophy than quality. Addendum to School Quality Review Report for Mission Hill School Re: Focus Area #3: Teaching and Learning January 2005 Sylvia Soderberg

This brief addendum to our report is written with complete respect and admiration for my colleagues on the SQR team. It was an honor and pleasure to work with them. The report is the result of teamwork, and the scores quite properly are the averages of all five members' judgments. Three days spent in a school cannot possibly reveal all of its facets, but we worked hard together to learn and understand as much as we could.

I write because some of the scores in the Teaching and Learning section do not reflect my individual view, and I want to make some comments. In my view, based on the descriptors from the rubric for a score of 2- "substantial room for improvement", and "action steps which must be addressed within a specific period of time", the school deserves no score lower than 3 for any of the categories. While there is room for improvement in some areas, and the lower scores reflect these, I think that the need is not as urgent as our composite scores would indicate. In addition, the idealism and collegial energy in the school are such that these areas are already being considered; some of them were discussed at the time of our visit. I believe that the recommendations are thoughtful and specific enough for the school to take as frameworks for ongoing dialogues and study, and I trust the school's excellent judgment and drive to improve.

In the most important ways, Mission Hill School does its job very well. It instills in its students from a very young age respect for others' thoughts and opinions. People at MHS truly listen to one another. From these good dialogues grow joyful, independent investigation and construction. This is powerful teaching and learning. But we live in a time when external testing has become almost a religious war on our teachers. I think that MHS may need to add yet one more factor into the complex and delicate mix that is education: that of providing the evidence of external measures and making clear to outsiders exactly what data is used to drive instruction, and how it is used to help individual students. Focus Area #4: ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT

As with any good plan for professional development, Mission Hill's program is ever-evolving to meet the interests and needs of its staff. They continue to have several hours of meetings a week, with various structures that attend to the different needs of the staff in the school. The meetings are staff-run, with professional development opportunities embedded in the structure. Their yearly beginning, mid-year and end-of-the-year retreats are also full of opportunities for staff members to teach and learn from one another. The Mission Hill teaching staff is taking initiative in their own professional development by attending outside workshops and conferences, as well as sharing their expertise with others by facilitating workshops. There was also evidence of some support from outside the school as well, such as math coaching. The staff recently decided to embrace the philosophy of "The Responsive Classroom" in order to create a more cohesive and consistent school climate, as well as buy-in to the "Mission Hill Way" for the staff, families and students. Finally, the teaching staff read An Ethic of Excellence by Ron Berger, and there is hope that the resulting conversations about critiques will help the staff move toward continued high expectations for Mission Hill students.

This year (2004-2005) the Mission Hill staff is instituting work groups, which are chosen and run by the staff. Some of them run for a few weeks as needed, others are designed to run for the entire school year. The purpose of work groups is to do relevant and important work at the school. The staff meets in work groups once a week, and they report back to the entire staff once a month. The topics of the groups are selected by staff, and cover curricular work (such as math and reading) as well as philosophical discussions (such as the school culture). According to a list of participants, not all staff members are expected to attend these groups, and the names of many assistants and interns were not on the list.

Mission Hill assistant teaching staff and interns are able to receive support from a group that began two years ago as a partnership with Tufts University. When Tufts was unable to participate last year, the school took on the initiative. This year, Alphonse meets weekly with interested support staff to check-in and discuss issues relevant to staff, such as management. The support staff has been reading from authors such as Lisa Delpit, to become more familiar with the unique interactions, challenges and benefits of working at a school as diverse as Mission Hill. Alphonse admits that the interns that Mission Hill has been receiving from their college partnerships are predominately white women. As a result, recruitment efforts have been shifted to include schools with a more diverse student population, with the hopes that more interns of color will be trained in the school, and stay to become lead teachers. The teaching staff of Mission Hill continues to use its carefully-crafted and self-selected method of internal evaluation and support. In the portfolio, there was written evidence of staff members helping each other improve their practice in various ways. For example, last year, Ann and Ayla worked together to make Ann's goals more specific, so they could be addressed, supported and evaluated more efficiently. Furthermore, when Kathy switched from a K/1 mix to a 2/3 mix, there was support from her colleagues on both sides, and she and her assistant Carlos were given time to travel to New York, where they visited one of Deborah Meier's schools to see a model of effective 2/3 teaching in action.

There seems to be very little lead teacher turnover at Mission Hill. Three members of the teaching staff have been hired internally, from a pool of interns who have worked on site for at least a year. The team considers this staff continuity to be both a benefit and a challenge. The consistency of teaching staff means that there is little need for a specific plan for recruitment of new teachers outside of the school, and there is no evidence of documented orientation for new staff. While the staffing situation is ideal in many respects, the team believes it would be beneficial for Mission Hill to create specific documentation of work in these areas, in the event that new staff needs to be recruited, hired and oriented to the school. Mission Hill is such a tight-knit, intimate setting and it would be helpful to have a more concrete orientation plan written down for others to follow.

Mission Hill School is also unique in that they have developed a co-principal model that strives to be a true partnershipbetween Deborah and Brian. The self evaluation, assessment process and final evaluation are completed jointly, and careful attention is paid to the fact that the co- principals are to be held to the same standards. While the staff and families seemed to have considerable confidence that the transition of administrators would be as smooth as possible, there was palpable concern about how Brian's job would change, and how the job of two people would be done by one person. The team recommends that the administration and staff continue to explore ways to broaden the responsibilities of the administrators to include the faculty and support staff (as they have in the "Delegation of Responsibilities" document). With that in mind, changes in the administrator evaluation process will most likely need to be considered as well. Commendations:

* There is built-in internal support for staff, and staff members' unique talents, experiences and strengths are both recognized and utilized. * There is a carefully documented protocol for lead teacher evaluation, and teachers are expected to complete the process according to a clearly-stated timeline. * The lack of diversity of incoming interns has been acknowledged, and is being addressed by utilizing partnerships with institutions that attract a more diverse population of students. * The staff-generated model of work groups seems to have a strong start, and enough organization, relevance and momentum to continue to develop into a program that will have multiple benefits to the staff and school. * The internal hiring and promotion process means that there is more experience and natural buy-in to the mission and vision of the school, with less need for orientation. * The collective decision to embrace the idea of "The Responsive Classroom", as well as An Ethic of Excellence ensures that there is whole staff consistency and a stronger message of unity and high standards. * There continues to be an impressively high rate of lead teachers who are certified in administration and/or special education. This is extremely noticeable when attending staff or student support meetings. There is an expectation that staff at Mission Hill continue to develop their expertise and leadership skills, for their individual and collective benefit. * The administrator's self evaluations were realistic and honest, with many specific areas of targeted improvement. They were written with careful attention to detail (Even the references to the administrators were used equitably: "Deb and Brian" "Brian and Deb"). * The extensive leadership responsibilities and experience of the staff will contribute to a much smoother transition of administrators when Deborah resigns in November. Much of the governance will continue just as it is. * According to Governance Board minutes of 9-21-04, there seems to be a strong beginning plan for the changeover of administration in November, as well as future leadership starting next year. Recommendations:

* Because the team did not see evidence of a clearly outlined plan for professional development of all staff at Mission Hill, we were left wondering if there was a hierarchy of who was afforded the opportunity for professional development, and who wasn't. To avoid confusion and possible assumptions, Mission Hill would benefit from formulating a statement which clearly describes the professional development opportunities for all staff at Mission Hill. It would be helpful to include examples of individualized professional development plans of people in different roles (lead teacher, assistant, specialists). * While there are documented procedures for hiring (i.e., protocols for resume screening, observations and interviews), working conditions, dispute resolution, governance and a staff handbook, the team did not see any documentation that outlines a plan for orientation of new staff to Mission Hill. There was anecdotal evidence that orientation does take place, but there was no written documentation to back it up. * We hope the critical work of examining the achievement of black boys at the school continues to inform the entire staff, and that concrete, relevant data can be collected to look for trends and patterns. * It seems important to continue asking: Are all teachers at Mission Hill adequately prepared to support and evaluate each other and their assistants? Do staff members of younger students know enough about middle school curricula to be able to evaluate a teacher at that grade level, and vice versa? Is there the danger of teachers "filling in the blanks" for each other (assuming they knew what the teacher meant, rather than asking hard questions). * Continue to examine the reasons why the number of family responses to surveys about administrators was so low (see Focus Area #5 for elaboration). * There were some great ideas that seemed to have been generated from the pursuit of a person to become the next co-principal. They might be adapted for use to recruit and hire new teachers and support staff, when necessary. * In light of the recent potential changes to Mission Hill's policy about the MCAS, it might be helpful to encourage some staff to pursue professional development in how to teach test-taking skills. While there is obvious opposition from the staff about the MCAS, if it becomes a reality, they will need to be ready to prepare their students for it. Rubric Scores

Plan to Address Needs 3.2 Schoolwide Practices 3.3 Individual Support 3.9 Formal Assessment 3.3 Supportive Intervention 4.0 Administrator Assessment 3.0 Hiring Process 3.8 Orientation 3.6

Total for Ongoing Professional Development and Support 3.5 Focus Area #5: FAMILY/COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EXTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS

The Mission Hill School is engaged for the first trimester in a school-wide theme of "Who Counts?" This theme coincides with the U.S. presidential election and the beginning of the new school year. A Mission Hill School newsletter states: " ...the best way to teach is to be an example.of what we are aiming for." (2004. vol.8 no. 8). The focus area offamily, community outreach and externalpartnerships provides an excellent place to look at the theme of 'Who Counts' in the context of the vision (the aim) of the school and the implementation of this vision in both formal and informal ways.

Review of the SQR documents presented by the Mission Hill School in this focus area provides overwhelming evidence that the school considers the role of families, community and external partnerships as being of great importance. To further illustrate Mission Hill's commitment in this focus area, conversations with staff, students and parents pointed toward a common vision of the Mission Hill School as one in which collaboration across all constituencies is at the heart of teaching and learning.

Family Families (and students) choose the Mission Hill School because they WANT to be there. Mission Hill is quite deliberate regarding an explicit description of the principles and vision of the school for all new and returning families. This explicitness is a vehicle by which the school attempts to preserve the vision and philosophy of the school.

One way in which this vision is manifested is through the use of the Parent Council, to which families automatically belong when their child(ren) are enrolled at the Mission Hill School. Although there is some concern about the success of the Parent Council in drawing a wide spectrum of parents into the school (see the Governance, Leadership and Budget section), this is a vehicle through which families can discuss ideas and take an active role in the life of the school.

Another strong indication of the commitment to families is the large number of staff members who have (or have had) their children enrolled at the school. In addition, each year a large number of parents make the decision to enroll siblings of current students into the school, even when there is a significant gap in the ages of the children and when parents have other schooling options for their children. The fact that staff members andformer parents actively choose to send their children to the very same school in which they work is a testament to their belief in the vision of the school and in the practical application of this vision in classrooms on a daily basis.

Family Nights are another way that families become involved in the life of the school. These gatherings may be focused on a variety of academic and non-academic topics such as the philosophical approaches to curriculum development at the school, panel discussions on educational topics, book swaps and Family Days at the.Farm School. As reported by the parents and staff members who talked with members of the SQR team, many of these events are well- attended by families. Parents may also participate in writing articles for the weekly school newsletter, visiting the school on both formal and informal occasions, and bringing their talents and interests into the development of classroom curriculum. As indicated by the aforementioned examples, the Mission Hill School prides itself on a commitment to children through purposeful involvement of their families.

Although the Mission Hill School actively seeks parent participation in the life of the school, the leadership of the school is characterized as being less willing to uphold this level of interest concerning issues of pedagogy and practice. As indicated by approximately 25% of the parents who spoke to the SQR team, there is a prevalent trend at the Mission Hill School regarding constructive dialogue with families around pedagogy and educational philosophy that was described several times by different parents through the use of the term "brick wall" (see the Governance, Leadership and Budget section for more information). It is during these times that families report feeling "shut out" and "dismissed". Parents did indicate that the teaching staff is considerably more willing to have these types of conversations than the co-principals and yet even these conversations "didn't go anywhere". Even when parents are privy to similar conversations held among staff members and co-principals, these conversations are not made public to the parent body and thus leave families feeling as though this is an area of schooling at Mission Hill in which they do not have a voice.

Although there was a great deal of emotion around the issue of voice in particular ways demonstrated by each parent with whom the SQR team spoke, they also indicated that they are extremely pleased with the school and often used the phrase, "It's the best school in Boston." At times, however, it seems as though qualifying the school in this way presented a more complex issue than the SQR team could appropriately assess in the short duration of our visit at the school. In fact statements relating to 'the best school in Boston' were often coupled with statements such as, "...but I am an educator who can provide additional support for my child" or " ...Ican afford to hire a tutor" or "...I have time to come into the classroom and talk with my child's teacher". During the SQR team/parent meeting, parents were clear about their need to raise issues on behalf of other parents who do not have the resources, time or constant attention needed to stay informed about issues of teaching and learning for their child.

Adding weight to this issue is the SQR final report filed in 2001. This report lists the very same concern that is raised in this SQR report around the issue of parent voice. Page 21 of the 2001 SQR report states, "While it is clear that some parents are fully involved in the life of the school, and speak strongly of caring for the community and of feeling cared for, this does not yet extend to all parents." The SQR 2001 report further highlights issues raised by "some parents of color, low-income parents and parents of students with special needs/issues" who do not feel as though they are "as involved and informed about the school's goals for their children". Although the theme of race and equity was not at the forefront of our conversations with families, parents did bring up issues of access and equity (as stated earlier).

Family conferences do provide a space and structure for all families to learn more and get their voices heard. The family/student/teacher model is positively viewed by the families with whom we spoke. However, some parents indicated to the SQR team that these conferences make it much more difficult to talk frankly about their child when the child is present, particularly around distressing issues pertaining to their child, the classroom or the school. For many families, these conferences are one of the few times they are able to arrange their schedules to meet with teachers and they question the value of them if they cannot talk about particular issues that they would rather not discuss in front of the student. Sending the student in the hall or simply not bringing him/her with them to the conference is not necessarily a wise option since parents feel there is a stigma associated with these actions, either in their own minds or in the minds of their child.

Parents and staff expressed concern about the current enrollment trend at the school. In effect, the trend indicates that particular grade levels see the migration of students to other schools. There are many conjectures as to why this trend exists; however, there is an absence of concrete data to back up any of these conjectures. A parent survey was distributed; however, only a small number was returned. Families and staff indicated the priority in determining why this trend exists and are strategizing ways to potentially ameliorate this issue, if it seems appropriate to do so. Community Outreach and External Partnerships The Mission Hill School is a slightly imposing structure in a residential neighborhood, near a busy city intersection. The grounds of the school have been refurbished which adds to the beauty and charm of the building. Many families and staff commented on the openness of the space on either side of the front lawn which makes the short walk up the steps a pleasant one. The current plans for refurbishing the outdoor recreational space, complete with open-air gathering spaces and cultural nuances are right in line with the vision of the school around issues of communication and participation.

The Mission Hill School shares the school building with the New Mission High School. This arrangement provides for communication between the schools and students, particularly around issues of student enrollment and space issues. Although these two schools occupy the same building, it was not evident that there is a significant relationship among the two schools, families or students.

The Mission Hill School is known in both local and national communities, largely through the work of Deborah Meier. Yet, the staff and families of the school have themselves formed relationships with organizations focused on Mission Hill youth programs, Mission Hill artists' groups, the School-to-Community Initiative, The Farm School, The Boston Nature Center, as well as countless museums and universities.

Several staff members indicated a need to re-establish connections with particular departments in the Boston Public School system. In doing so, they assert, the school will be better able to provide particular expertise and training in areas that have not been explored recently at the school. In addition, a reconnection to BPS may help bring additional personnel into the school in curricular areas in which the Mission Hill School would like to focus.

In total, the Mission Hill School has a well-articulated vision of family involvement and community partnerships. This vision is shared with families through the use of many different venues both inside and outside of the school itself. The place that the vision gets blurred is around issues of philosophy and curricular implementation. In these areas, some families feel as though conversations happen but are not acted upon. In order for the Mission Hill School to continue to be a beacon for families desiring a holistic education for their child(ren), the school must embrace questions and differences in opinion in substantial ways, while also holding onto the vision of the school. Commendations

* Mission Hill families are a part of the school because they want to be. Adding to this is the fact that a large number of staff members send their children to the Mission Hill School. From conversations with parents and staff members, it appears that families who have their children at the Mission Hill School are clear about the philosophy of the school and are glad to have their children attend the school.

* The Mission Hill School has many formal and informal structures for involving families in the life of the school (see report).

* The Mission Hill School has a local and national reputation for progressive education and serves as-a demonstration site for a variety of individuals and organizations.

Recommendations

* While is it important for the leadership of the school to promote the collective vision of the school, it is our recommendation that a more substantial effort be made to follow through on the ideas and concerns of parents so that they feel as though they are truly heard and not superficially listened to. Enacting the model of critical friends is something that the Mission Hill School should consider in order to put into practice the idea of having a successful, productive school community that will transcend individual staff members and families.

* The Mission Hill School would benefit from additional information concerning the issue of families leaving the school in particular grade levels. The data gathered thus far is ambiguous and inconclusive at best. More effort needs to be made, perhaps through the Parent Council or some other school mechanism, to ensure that more accurate and reliable data is presented for analysis. It is only when there is a substantial amount of reliable data that the Mission Hill School can determine appropriate next steps in the area of recruitment and retention of families.

* While the structure of family conferences has a great deal of social and educational merit, some parents would like for the school to revisit this idea or devise another way in which parents can speak frankly about their child(ren), particularly around difficult issues. Rubric Scores

Outreach to Families 2.6 Ongoing Dialogue 3.0 Participation 3.0 Strong Partnerships 4.0

Total for Family/Community Outreach and External Partnerships 3.2