NEASC Report - University Park School - Worcester Public Schools

NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS
REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE
University Park Campus School
Worcester, Massachusetts
October 14 – October 17, 2012
Eric Feldborg, CHAIR
Carol Luckenbach, ASSISTANT CHAIR
Daniel St. Louis, PRINCIPAL
Page 1 of 89

New England Association of Schools and Colleges
3 Burlington Woods, Suite 100, Burlington, MA 01803
TEL. 781-425-7700
FAX 781-425-1001
www.neasc.org
Page 2 of 89

Page 3 of 89

STATEMENT ON LIMITATIONS
THE DISTRIBUTION, USE AND SCOPE OF THE
VISITING COMMITTEE REPORT
The Committee on Public Secondary Schools of the New England Association of Schools
and Colleges considers this visiting committee report of University Park Campus School to be a
privileged document submitted by the Committee on Public Secondary Schools of the New England
Association of Schools and Colleges to the principal of the school and by the principal to the state
department of education. Distribution of the report within the school community is the responsibility of
the school principal. The final visiting committee report must be released in its entirety within sixty
days (60) of its completion to the superintendent, school board, public library or town office, and the
appropriate news media.
The prime concern of the visiting committee has been to assess the quality of the
educational program at University Park Campus School in terms of the Committee's Standards for
Accreditation. Neither the total report nor any of its subsections is to be considered an evaluation of any
individual staff member but rather a professional appraisal of the school as it appeared to the visiting
committee.
Page 4 of 89

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Statement On Limitations
Introduction...............................................................................................................7
School and Community Summary............................................................................9
School’s Core Values, Beliefs, and Learning Expectations........................................14
Teaching and Learning Standards...........................................................................15
Core Values, Beliefs, and Learning Expectations............................................16
Curriculum.......................................................................................................21
Instruction........................................................................................................30
Assessment of and for Student Learning.........................................................41
Support of Teaching and Learning Standards.........................................................55
School Culture and Leadership........................................................................57
School Resources for Learning........................................................................69
Community Resources for Learning................................................................76
Follow-Up Responsibilities....................................................................................87
APPENDICES
A. Roster of Visiting Committee Members
B. Committee Policy on Substantive Change
Page 5 of 89

Page 6 of 89

INTRODUCTION
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) is the oldest of the six regional
accrediting agencies in the United States. Since its inception in 1885, the Association has awarded
membership and accreditation to those educational institutions in the six-state New England region who
seek voluntary affiliation.
The governing body of the Association is its Board of Trustees which supervises the work of
four Commissions: the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (CIHE), the Commission on
Independent Schools (CIS), the Commission on Public Schools which is comprised of the Committee on
Public Secondary Schools (CPSS), the Committee on Technical and Career Institutions (CTCI), the
Committee on Public Elementary and Middle Schools (CPEMS), and the Commission on American and
International Schools Abroad (CAISA).
As the responsible agency for matters of the evaluation and accreditation of public secondary
school member institutions, CPSS requires visiting committees to assess the degree to which the
evaluated schools meet the qualitative Standards for Accreditation of the Committee. Those Standards
are:
Teaching and Learning Standards
Core Values, Beliefs, and Learning Expectations
Curriculum
Instruction
Assessment of and for Student Learning
Support of Teaching and Learning Standards
School Culture and Leadership
School Resources for Learning
Community Resources for Learning.
The accreditation program for public schools involves a threefold process: the self-study
conducted by the local professional staff, the on-site evaluation conducted by the Committee's visiting
committee, and the follow-up program carried out by the school to implement the findings of its own
self-study and the valid recommendations of the visiting committee and those identified by the
Committee in the Follow-Up process. Continued accreditation requires that the school be reevaluated at
least once every ten years and that it show continued progress addressing identified needs.
Preparation for the Accreditation Visit - The School Self-Study
A steering committee of the professional staff was appointed to supervise the myriad details
inherent in the school's self-study. At University Park Campus School, a committee of 12 members,
including the principal, supervised all aspects of the self-study. The steering committee assigned all
teachers and administrators in the school to appropriate subcommittees to determine the quality of all
programs, activities and facilities available for young people. In addition to faculty members, the selfstudy
committees included five students, four parents, one central office professional, one school board
representative and seven citizens.
The self-study of University Park Campus School extended over a period of fifteen school
months from March, 2011 to May, 2012.
Public schools evaluated by the Committee on Public Secondary Schools must complete appropriate
materials to assess their adherence to the Standards for Accreditation and the quality of their educational
offerings in light of the school's mission, learning expectations, and unique student population. In addition
to using the Self-Study Guides developed by a representative group of New England educators and
approved by the Committee, University Park Campus School also used questionnaires developed by The
Research Center at Endicott College to reflect the concepts contained in the Standards for Accreditation.
Page 7 of 89

These materials provided discussion items for a comprehensive assessment of the school by the professional
staff during the self-study.
It is important that the reader understand that every subcommittee appointed by the steering
committee was required to present its report to the entire professional staff for approval. No single
report developed in the self-study became part of the official self-study documents until it had been
approved by the entire professional staff.
The Process Used by the Visiting Committee
A visiting committee of 12 evaluators was assigned by the Committee on Public Secondary
Schools to evaluate the University Park Campus School. The Committee members spent four days in
Worcester, Massachusetts, reviewed the self-study documents which had been prepared for their
examination, met with administrators, teachers, other school and system personnel, students and parents,
shadowed students, visited classes, and interviewed teachers to determine the degree to which the school
meets the Committee's Standards for Accreditation. Since the evaluators represented public high and
middle schools, public charter schools, public magnate schools, central office administrators, vocational
institutions and institutions of higher education, and the public, diverse points of view were brought to
bear on the evaluation of University Park Campus School.
The visiting committee built its professional judgment on evidence collected from the following sources:
review of the school's self-study materials
28 hours shadowing 12 students for a half day
a total of 28 hours of classroom observation (in addition to time shadowing students)
numerous informal observations in and around the school
tours of the facility
individual meetings with all teachers about their work, instructional approaches, and the
assessment of student learning
group meetings with students, parents, school and district administrators, and teachers
the examination of student work including a selection of work collected by the school
Each conclusion in the report was agreed to by visiting committee consensus. Sources of
evidence for each conclusion drawn by the visiting committee appear in parenthesis in the Standards
sections of the report. The seven Standards for Accreditation reports include commendations and
recommendations that in the visiting committee’s judgment will be helpful to the school as it works to
improve teaching and learning and to better meet Committee Standards.
This report of the findings of the visiting committee will be forwarded to the Committee on
Public Secondary Schools which will make a decision on the accreditation of University Park Campus
School.
Page 8 of 89

School and Community Summary
University Park Campus School, located in the Main South section of Worcester, Massachusetts
serves students from a defined neighborhood immediately surrounding the school. The most
economically challenged section of Worcester; Main South has seen a steady decline since the middle of
the last century in jobs and economic development. This has caused the neighborhood, a once strong and
affluent section of the city, to fall into disrepair. The many triple-decker homes remind us of the strong
manufacturing presence that has since left the neighborhood several decades ago. In the early 80s to the
early 90s absentee landlordism, crime, prostitution and violence replaced them. Clark University, a
neighborhood resident since 1887, decided to take a pro-active and participatory approach to
neighborhood revitalization. University Park Campus School was one arm of a greater effort to stabilize
the neighborhood which included affordable housing, greater police and neighborhood investment, and
stronger community involvement. As such, University Park Campus School had a unique start-up.
Through a partnership between the Worcester Public Schools and Clark University, it started with a new
7 th grade in the 1997-1998 school year. Each year after, a new 7 th grade was added until the school was at
full capacity in 2002-2003, when it graduated its first class. The only requirement to attend UPCS is to
live within the defined neighborhood, a geographical area with a one-mile radius surrounding the
epicenter, Clark University.
Worcester is the second largest city in New England. According to the 2010 census, Worcester
has a population of 181,045 residents. A review of city-wide demographics indicates that 65.2% of its
population is White, 19% is Hispanic, 10.1% is Black, 4.5% is Asian, and 1% is considered two or more
races. The median household income in Worcester in 2010 was $47,415, but that of Main South was
only $36,448. In Main South Worcester there are over 12,500 people living in one square mile.
According to the census, 44.2% of the population is Hispanic, 30.4% are Caucasian, 10.7% are Asian
and 10.4% are African American. House values in the neighborhood are also significantly below the
overall city average.
There are 24,411 students in the Worcester Public Schools in 42 schools across the city. Districtwide,
Hispanics represent 38.4% of the population, Whites represent 36.4%, Blacks represent 13.6% and
Asians represent 8.1%. University Park Campus School has a population of 244 students in grades 7-12;
44.3% of them are Hispanic, 24.2% are White, 22.5% are Asian, and 9.0% are Black. For 63.1% of
students at UPCS English is not their first language, 15.2% have limited English proficiency, 82.4% are
from families with low-income, 10.7% are special education students, and 82.3% receive free or reduced
lunch. The attendance rate at UPCS is 96.1%. This compares to 94.2% and 94.7% at the district and
state respectively. The school’s graduation rate is 95.2%, well above the district percentage of 72% and
above the state average of 83.4%. The school’s suspension rate is only 2.9%; while the district’s is
12.6%. According to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE),
UPCS boasts an aggregate percentage of stability at 97.8%. Students attend school for 180 days, and
teachers have three mandatory staff development days in addition to the required student days. The
teacher attendance at UPCS is also comparatively very high at over 95%.
According to the Massachusetts DESE, the Worcester Public Schools spent $12,906 per pupil in
2010. This compares to a state average of $13,055 per student. UPCS spends approximately $5,662.50
per student excluding administrative overhead from the district. The Worcester Public Schools receives
sixty-four percent of its funding from state monies, thirty percent from property taxes, and about nine
percent from Federal funds/grants.
Page 9 of 89

There are 15 full-time teachers at UPCS. Each teacher carries an approximate load of 80
students. UPCS has a 15.3 to 1 student/teacher ratio; this is slightly higher than the district at 15.1 to 1.
At UPCS 100% of teachers are licensed in their teaching assignment and 97.9% of core academic
courses are taught by teachers who are highly qualified in that area.
All students in all grades take core academic courses. Additionally, all courses are honors level.
While there are students with special educational needs and limited English proficient students in
heterogeneous classes, all students are appropriately supported and expected to achieve in this rigorous
all honors curriculum.
Middle school students take five classes a day: English Language Arts, mathematics, social
studies, science, and either literacy for 7 th graders or numeracy for 8 th graders. Itinerant courses are
offered once a week in music, art, physical education, and health. Each class is 70-minutes long. This
focus on core academic subjects and providing more time on learning is meant to prepare students for
the all-honors, college-ready curriculum of the high school.
The high school curriculum ensures college-readiness for all. Every student takes four years of
English, four years of math, four years of science, and four years of a social science. Moreover, students
take Spanish as a world language starting in grade 9. All students must complete at least three years of
Spanish. All courses are honors level; we have several AP courses offered to students in grades 9-12.
Currently the school offers AP English Literature, English Language, United States History, United
States Government, Geography, and Calculus. In previous years the school also offered AP Spanish, and
AP Environmental Science. Once students are in their sophomore year, qualified applicants can take
college courses at Clark University for credit. By the time they graduate, most students have taken a
college course there, and all students have taken at least one college course at Clark, Holy Cross,
Worcester State University or Quinsigamond Community College.
One hundred percent of our students are accepted to college, and 95-100% of them matriculate in
the fall. According to data obtained by our alumni survey, more than 70% of our graduates have
completed a college degree within a six-year window. A large percentage of graduates attend four-year
academic institutions, with over 80% matriculating at these schools. UPCS surveys and tracks its alumni
to inform the work of the school and the ways we can make the transition to college for our firstgeneration
college goers more transparent.
University Park Campus School enjoys wonderful partnerships that help provide a world-class
education to its students. First and most obviously, our partnership with Clark University provides a
unique and unparalleled system of supports for the school and our students. While the university does
not provide immense financial support, the “in-kind” resources are amazing. Students use the Clark
library, the Clark gymnasium, and many other resources on campus. Clark provides work-study
students, tutors, graduate students, and volunteers to the school. Most impressively, Clark makes a
promise to every student living in the neighborhood. If a student is accepted under normal admissions
criteria, he or she is given free tuition to the University. It is impossible to overstate the importance of
this promise, as low-income students in the 7 th grade can hear that if they work hard enough, college will
be free.
An exciting new initiative began last year to extend that promise to the larger neighborhood. On
the north side of the Clark University campus, roughly one mile from University Park Campus School,
Claremont Academy, a school with which UPCS shares some varsity sports, such as basketball,
volleyball, cross country and track and field, has been an under-performing school for many years. Last
spring the Worcester Public Schools tapped into the leadership at UPCS to help the struggling school,
Page 10 of 89

and offered the principal’s position to the then current UPCS principal, Ricci Hall. As a result of his
decision to take on this opportunity, five other veteran educators made the choice to continue the
promise of UPCS, to build a partnership among the three entities with Clark University as the fulcrum.
This exciting change necessitated a 50% turnover in staff at UPCS with a combination of new teacher
hires, and former teachers moving into non-instructional roles. There is a new infusion of energy at the
school and we continue to remain steadfast in our mission to educate the whole child.
University Park Campus School has had an unrivaled record of accomplishment with underrepresented
students who are all too rarely successful in our public schools across the nation. This has
resulted in our school being recognized by many different organizations and groups, including the
President of the United States. We have been visited by governors, senators, and countless educational
leaders from around the state, country, and globe. Yet our success is not measured simply by those who
have visited, or by our state test scores, or even by our college-attendance rates. Instead, we judge our
success by the thinking, connected, and caring students we produce who are college and career ready,
who can break the cycle of poverty and who have life-sustaining wages and fruitful and productive lives
as citizens of our community, city, state, country, and globe.
Page 11 of 89

School’s Core Values, Beliefs, and Learning Expectations
Mission
“For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.” - Whitman
University Park Campus School exists to provide a first-class education to a traditionally disadvantaged
population. Situated in the economically challenged Main South section of Worcester, UPCS is a public,
7-12 school that accepts neighborhood students of all abilities and prepares them for success in college.
Students will be taught to read, write, and think on their own, with the realization that hard work
develops a strong intellect. Every single student pursues a rigorous academic program consisting of all
honors classes. At the same time, instruction is individualized to connect to each student’s particular
level of development. There is no tracking. Instead, there are small, heterogeneous classes centered on
active student inquiry and collaborative group work. UPCS utilizes extended learning blocks, morning
and afternoon academic help sessions, a rich variety of extracurricular activities, and a range of powerful
summer learning opportunities to develop well-rounded, deep-thinking individuals.
Students study in a building that is small, nurturing, intimate, and comfortable, but one that is
inextricably connected to Clark University. The Clark University Hiatt Center for Urban Education is an
important partner in developing and implementing effective teaching strategies. In addition, Clark offers
UPCS students access to a number of facilities, including a research library, gymnasiums, classrooms,
commons area, etc. In addition, every UPCS student will take at least one college course from Clark or
from another member of the Worcester College Consortium.
The mission at UPCS is to produce students who are confident and who understand that desire and hard
work beat adversity.
Vision
The vision of University Park Campus School is for each student to graduate prepared for success in
college. This includes the ability to work collaboratively with different people, to communicate
effectively in a number of formats, to think independently, to persist in difficult tasks, to be reflective,
and to contribute to society in a positive manner. Students should have plans to pursue post-secondary
studies, and they should have all the confidence and skills necessary to pursue those studies successfully.
As an institution, the goal of UPCS is to continually reflect upon both our successes and our
shortcomings, and to use this reflection to revise instructional practices to best serve our students.
Core Values
The goal at UPCS is to educate resourceful, reflective, and responsible scholars who approach new
learning situations with a unique sense of eagerness and confidence. While engaging in college
preparatory content, UPCS students are expected to evaluate, analyze, infer from, retain and apply
information. This becomes possible, we believe, when students are trained as thinkers—when they are
encouraged to practice, to notice, to inquire, and to experiment. Under these circumstances, instruction
must be personalized, and content must be taught alongside study skills relevant to the 21st century;
both latter and former will be tied to real world application. It is also necessary, if students are going to
go on to pursue post-secondary course work and eventually become leaders within their chosen fields,
that learning be framed as an ongoing process—complete with pitfalls. Failure cannot be seen as reason
to give up, but rather the opposite, a catalyst to do better next time. Our students shall discover that
persistence coupled with real, focused effort, will bear fruit and be effective. All are deserving of
Page 12 of 89

success, but none can achieve it without hard work. Our teachers will embolden students to pursue their
passions, encourage them to value the journeys they take to reach their goals, and allow them to take
responsibility for and ownership of their own learning.
Focus Statement
To ensure that all students are college ready, University Park Campus School will focus on teaching kids
to read, write, and think analytically and critically.
Social
School-wide 21 st Century Learning Expectations
Students will take responsibility for their learning and make appropriate plans for the future
academic years.
Students will develop a sense of self-worth and display the confidence and persistence to begin and
complete challenging tasks.
Students will develop and maintain a culture at UPCS that embraces diversity, supports peer
learning, fosters cooperation, and encourages excellence.
Academic
Across all disciplines, students will read sophisticated material and write in ways that demonstrate
thoughtful analysis and synthesis of that material in and out of class.
Students will generate thoughtful questions and engage in reflective research and problem solving.
(inquiry).
Students will learn to express themselves creatively and to appreciate the expression of others.
Students will successfully engage with college-level content in all major disciplines.
Students will learn to evaluate and makes use of a variety of media and technology.
Civic
Students and faculty will participate in building the larger community by learning about community
institutions, demonstrating respect, modeling responsible behavior, participating in conflict
resolution, and mentoring younger community members.
Students will achieve an awareness and appreciation of local, national, and global issues relating to
culture, the economy, and the environment. They will understand the impact of individual decision
making within the greater social order.
Page 13 of 89

COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS
TEACHING AND LEARNING
STANDARDS
__________________________________________
CORE VALUES, BELIEFS AND
LEARNING EXPECTATIONS
__________________________________________
CURRICULUM
__________________________________________
INSTRUCTION
__________________________________________
ASSESSMENT OF AND FOR
STUDENT LEARNING
Page 14 of 89

Teaching and Learning Standard
1 Core Values, Beliefs, and Learning Expectations
Effective schools identify core values and beliefs about learning that function as explicit foundational
commitments to students and the community. Decision-making remains focused on and aligned with
these critical commitments. Core values and beliefs manifest themselves in research-based, school-wide
21 st century learning expectations. Every component of the school is driven by the core values and
beliefs and supports all students’ achievement of the school’s learning expectations.
1. The school community engages in a dynamic, collaborative, and inclusive process informed by current
research-based best practices to identify and commit to its core values and beliefs about learning.
2. The school has challenging and measurable 21 st century learning expectations for all students which
address academic, social, and civic competencies, and are defined by school-wide analytic rubrics
that identify targeted high levels of achievement.
3. The school’s core values, beliefs, and 21 st century learning expectations are actively reflected in the
culture of the school, drive curriculum, instruction, and assessment in every classroom, and guide the
school’s policies, procedures, decisions, and resource allocations.
4. The school regularly reviews and revises its core values, beliefs, and 21 st century learning expectations
based on research, multiple data sources, as well as district and school community priorities.
Page 15 of 89

Teaching and Learning Standards
Core Values, Beliefs, and Learning Expectations
CONCLUSIONS
The school community engages in a mostly dynamic, frequently collaborative, but partially
inclusive process to identify and commit to its core values and beliefs about learning. Most
members of the school community (parents, students, and staff) have a good understanding of the
school’s primary values and beliefs about learning. Reports from these stakeholders, responses to the
Endicott survey, commitments to the student-family accountability contract, and parent council minutes
indicate an understanding and commitment to the school’s core values and beliefs about learning. Some
stakeholders informally participated in the process of forming these values and beliefs. Collaboration
occurred through the student advisory program, Wednesday staff meetings, community advisory board,
parent nights, and summer programming. Research and best practices inform the school staff through
professional development, staff meetings, Marshall Memo articles, and instructional coach feedback.
Major modifications of the core values and beliefs document appear to be initiated by faculty
committees and then discussed with various stakeholders. However, it is unclear how those discussions
impacted the development of the core values and beliefs about learning. The mission, vision and core
values statements are posted in some classrooms and available in the student handbook, but they are not
readily available on the school website. When asked to identify a single core value or belief at
University Park Campus School, teachers, administrators, school committee members, students and
parents all articulate the same basic answer: “Every student can learn at high levels and every student
can be successful in college.” While the mission, vision, core values and focus statements are eloquently
written, specific core values and beliefs are not clearly articulated. Although there is a robust connection
between the school community and the school’s set of core values and beliefs, when all the core values
are clearly articulated and readily accessible, the greater community will have a better opportunity to
Page 16 of 89

e familiar with them. (Endicott survey, teachers, students, parent council meeting minutes, End-of-Year
Reflections & Next Steps)
The school has specific 21 st century learning expectations for all students which address social,
academic, and civic competencies, not all of which are measurable, that identify targeted high
levels of achievement; however, the rubrics are holistic rather than analytic. The list of ten learning
expectations is clearly delineated into academic, civic, and social categories. At their annual spring
learning expectation conferences, students make direct connections between their performance in school
and the 21 st century learning expectations, which are consistent with the school’s core value of preparing
all students for successful matriculation in college. The 2010 Alumni Survey found that 75 percent of
UPCS alumni have either graduated from college or are on track to complete a degree within six years of
their high school graduation. Gateway projects are essential for assessment of 21 st century learning
across academic disciplines. Tenth and eleventh grade Preparedness for Educational Pathways (PEP)
Conferences (meetings with an individual student, his/her advisor, and teaching team) each winter term
assist students in taking responsibility for their learning and their academic future. The Clark University
partnership also helps to foster these 21 st century skills. Informal connections are made in advisory and
through specific teacher feedback from classroom assignments. Although school-wide rubrics exist for
the ten expectations, these rubrics are not analytic. It is also unclear how they are being used beyond the
students’ annual reviews and 10 th grade Gateway projects. Because the current school rubrics are not
analytic, they lack the specific criteria for each level of achievement that is essential for students,
parents, and teachers to be clear about what each student must do to achieve the 21 st century learning
expectations. (Gateway projects, alumni survey, Clark University Partnership Agreement, 21 st century
learning expectations document)
Page 17 of 89

The school’s core values, beliefs, and 21 st century learning expectations are pervasive throughout
the culture of the school, somewhat drive curriculum, instruction, and assessment in classrooms,
and guide many of the school’s policies, procedures, decisions, and resource allocations. The core
value of preparing all students for rigorous study and ultimate matriculation into college is actively
reflected throughout the culture of the school and is evident through attendance records, after-school
tutoring and clubs, summer programming, and participation in college level courses. One of UPCS’s
strongest cultural beliefs is that strong connections should be established and nurtured among all
stakeholders. Most students list their school’s best quality as students' comfort level with each other and
with their teachers. Ongoing dialogue throughout the school community is highly valued. The Endicott
survey reports that 100 percent of parents surveyed agrees that the curriculum at UPCS provides their
child with opportunities to achieve the school’s learning expectations. UPCS’s Vision Statement
includes, “As an institution, the goal of UPCS is to continually reflect upon both our successes and our
shortcomings and to use this reflection to revise instructional practice to best serve our students.”
Specific examples of how UPCS’s Core Values and Beliefs drive practice include the establishment of
the 9th Grade Academy, the extended learning blocks for 7 th , 8 th and some 10 th grade classes, the
partnership with the Center for Nonviolence, and the Gateway projects. The 2010 Alumni Survey finds
the most common challenge reported by UPCS graduates was time management. As a direct result, the
12 th grade schedule was revamped. This new schedule provides greater personal and academic freedom
to help students understand how to function in a college setting and will be reassessed for effectiveness
in the 2013 Alumni Survey. A specific resource allocation decision resulting from examination of the
core values includes hiring the alumni coordinator. Because the school’s core values, beliefs, and
learning expectations permeate the culture of the school, proactive decision- making occurs that
improves student preparation for success in college. (alumni survey, student observations, student work
samples, curriculum maps, staff meeting minutes, teachers, students)
Page 18 of 89

UPCS regularly but unsystematically reviews and revises its core values, beliefs, and 21 st century
learning expectations based on research, multiple data sources, as well as district and school
community priorities. The timeline for review and revision includes annual formal review and informal
collaboration among stakeholders. The actual process for review appears to be initiated by school staff
before changes are discussed among various stakeholders. UPCS’s end-of-year reflections provide data
for instructional leadership teams to recommend future actions. Data sources utilized to inform changes
in core values and learning expectations include the following: spring learning expectation conference,
Wednesday staff meeting discussions including specific student performance in classes, feedback from
the Instructional Coach, tri-annual alumni survey, Gateway projects, and PEP Conferences. District
priorities are not mentioned as a significant influence on changes in core values, beliefs, or learning
expectations as the Innovation School status affords UPCS's administrator, faculty and staff much
autonomy from the Wocester Public School District. School and community priorities are expressed
through the Clark University Partnership Committee, advisory committee, parent council, student
council, student-superintendent council, advisories, and feedback from college professors. The
Wraparound coordinator functions as the parent liaison to engage greater parent involvement. The
Endicott survey reports that 84.7 percent of parents, 64.4 percent of students, and 94.4 percent of staff
feel that they have significant input into important decisions made at the school. While the process for
review and revision of the core values and beliefs is informal, it occurs continuously and organically,
ensuring that the values and beliefs reflect district and school community priorities. (Friday focus
letters, Gateway assessment project, Marshall Memo, alumni survey, Endicott survey, draft of core
values and beliefs document, End-of-Year Reflection & Next Steps, teachers)
Commendations:
1. The ongoing informal dialogue among stakeholders that results in internalization of core values
and beliefs within the school community
Page 19 of 89

2. The strong, embedded culture of success at UPCS
3. The 21 st century learning expectations that are encouraged and demonstrated formally and
informally throughout the school
4. The willingness to routinely make changes in instructional delivery and resource allocations
based on the importance placed on 21 st century learning skills
5. The significant and ongoing efforts to include all stakeholders in discussions regarding core
values, beliefs, and student learning expectations
Recommendations
1. Increase the breadth of stakeholder inclusiveness in the process to identify core values and
beliefs
2. Clearly articulate all core values
3. Revise the 21 st century learning expectations to ensure that each one is measurable
4. Revise the school-wide rubrics to be analytic rather than holistic
5. Publicize core values, beliefs, and learning expectations on the school website
6. Clarify the process and timeline for the regular review and revision of the core values, beliefs
and learning expectations
Page 20 of 89

2 Curriculum
Teaching and Learning Standard
The written and taught curriculum is designed to result in all students achieving the school's 21 st century
expectations for student learning. The written curriculum is the framework within which a school aligns
and personalizes the school's 21 st century learning expectations. The curriculum includes a
purposefully designed set of course offerings, co-curricular programs, and other learning opportunities.
The curriculum reflects the school’s core values, beliefs, and learning expectations. The curriculum is
collaboratively developed, implemented, reviewed, and revised based on analysis of student
performance and current research.
1. The curriculum is purposefully designed to ensure that all students practice and achieve each of
the school's 21 st century learning expectations.
2. The curriculum is written in a common format that includes:
units of study with essential questions, concepts, content, and skills
the school’s 21 st century learning expectations
instructional strategies
assessment practices that include the use of school-wide analytic and course-specific rubrics.
3. The curriculum emphasizes depth of understanding and application of knowledge through:
inquiry and problem-solving
higher order thinking
cross-disciplinary learning
authentic learning opportunities both in and out of school
informed and ethical use of technology.
4. There is clear alignment between the written and taught curriculum.
5. Effective curricular coordination and vertical articulation exist between and among all academic
areas within the school as well as with sending schools in the district.
6. Staffing levels, instructional materials, technology, equipment, supplies, facilities, and the resources
of the library/media center are sufficient to fully implement the curriculum, including the
co-curricular programs and other learning opportunities.
7. The district provides the school’s professional staff with sufficient personnel, time, and financial
resources for ongoing and collaborative development, evaluation, and revision of the curriculum
using assessment results and current research.
Page 21 of 89

Curriculum
CONCLUSIONS
The curriculum is to some degree purposefully designed to ensure that students practice and
achieve most of the learning expectations.
It is evident that the school has a clear document for 21 st century learning expectations. Some teachers
report they are expected to implement all ten learning expectations in every grade. The 21 st century
learning expectations are explicitly referenced in the math, English, science, and history department
expectations and in the math, art, and some history curriculum maps. In the four core subject area
curriculum maps, the learning expectations are identified, but there is no clear evidence of connections
between and among content, instructional strategies, and expectations. The 21 st century learning
expectations are not incorporated in non-core subject area departments’ expectations or curriculum
maps, and there is no evidence to show that the 21 st century learning expectations are being used
explicitly during regular class periods. Students demonstrate progress toward the 21 st century learning
expectations through the 8 th , 10 th , and 12 th grade Gateway cross-curricular projects. When departments
establish more consistency with inclusion of the 21st century learning expectations in the curriculum,
students will have more effective opportunities to practice and achieve the expectations. (teacher
interviews, panel presentation, student shadowing, self-study, curriculum documents)
The curriculum is written in a common format that includes all units of study with some essential
questions, all concepts, all content, and some skills; some units of study with 21 st century learning
expectations; no instructional strategies; and some assessment practices that include the use of
school-wide and course-specific rubrics. All courses, with the exception of TV Studio, have
University Park Campus School (UPCS) curriculum maps and Worcester Public Schools curriculum
guides documented in the department binders. UPCS has a common template for writing all curriculum
maps; however, each department personalizes the curriculum map. Not all curriculum maps are
Page 22 of 89

complete, and some maps lack essential questions, skills, or assessments. Math, English, science, and
history curriculum maps include the 21 st century learning expectations, no others do. University Park
Campus School teachers and administrators state that the curriculum maps function as the units of study;
however, the curriculum maps lack substantive detail, and they do not provide instructional strategies or
materials for the content or skills listed. While the curriculum maps provide long-term outlines that vary
in format, there is no clear breakdown of what instruction looks like on a daily basis. Assessment
practices are listed for some but not all courses. The outline structure of the maps does not offer clarity
about how these assessment practices translate into the classroom. Classroom observations reveal that
daily and unit objectives are not posted and are only sporadically provided. Teachers and the principal
report that the practice of not posting objectives is purposeful because the philosophy of UPCS is to
implement inquiry and discovery- based lessons; however, it is unclear whether students meet the
objectives because objectives are not routinely stated and daily objectives are not written in curriculum
documents. Some of the school-wide rubrics are implemented in some courses, but this is not consistent
across all subjects or in all grade levels. The inconsistency in curriculum content, the lack of clear
learning objectives for daily instruction, and the inconsistent integration of school-wide rubrics make it
difficult to assess the degree to which all students can be successful in meeting the school’s 21 st century
learning expectations. (teacher interviews, curriculum self-study group, student shadowing, self-study)
The curriculum frequently emphasizes depth of understanding, authentic learning opportunities
and application of knowledge through inquiry and problem-solving; sometimes emphasizes higher
order thinking and cross-disciplinary learning; and rarely emphasizes the informed and ethical
use of technology.
Students report that the teachers emphasize depth of understanding over breadth of understanding. The
self-study reports and classroom observations and review of student work confirm that the honors level
program in grades 7-12 follows a curricular theme of ‘minds thinking’ in which students show and
Page 23 of 89

explain their thinking through writing. Even though pace of instruction for Worcester Public Schools is
specified in the district curriculum guides, teachers and the principal report having the ability to control
the pace of the curriculum because UPCS has been designated as an “Innovation School.” Teachers can
spend more time on particular topics if necessary. Teachers report using inquiry-based learning
activities to engage students with new material, for example, at the beginning of a unit. Because
students are heterogeneously grouped in all classes, teachers often provide easy, medium, and
challenging opportunities for learning during group work, enhancing depth of understanding and
meeting student needs at their own level. Students report, and it was evident in classroom visits, that
they have the opportunity to self-select the level of challenge within the honors level curriculum. This
allows students to learn at their own individual pace and encourages higher-level students to take on
enrichment challenges. The collection of student work samples shows a combination of higher-order
thinking and recall for knowledge-based activities and assessments. Higher-order thinking was observed
in an 8 th grade math class in which students were asked to create their own math problems, which
connected higher-order thinking to the 21 st century learning expectations and generated thoughtful
questions. An example of less challenging work observed in a mathematics class was having students
complete a crossword puzzle to reinforce unit vocabulary. This learning experience only required
students to think only at the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Two math curriculum maps show
cross-disciplinary connections and students report that cross-disciplinary connections are frequent.
Endicott survey results indicate that 77.6 percent of students and 72.2 percent of staff feel that teachers
include topics from other curricular areas in their instruction. The curriculum guides and maps do not
include significant references across disciplines. The most significant explicit cross-disciplinary
opportunity occurs during the sophomore Gateway project, in which students research an issue of
interest, suggest potential solutions to the identified problem, and publicly present their findings.
Students have some opportunities to engage in authentic learning opportunities in school through
projects, portfolios, and artwork. For example, students attend an overnight field trip to a farm for an
Page 24 of 89

authentic learning experience. Juniors and seniors participate in out-of-school internships and at least
one college-level course. Technology is limited in the school, hindering access and integration by both
students and teachers. It is not evident that students are taught to use technology ethically except in the
one senior technology course. While the school’s emphasis on authentic learning opportunities and
inquiry-based lessons supports students in developing the ability to think independently and to persist in
solving challenging problems, an increase in available technology will enhance students’ ability to
achieve the 21 st century learning expectations. (student interviews, teacher interviews, sending schools’
meeting)
There is limited alignment between the written and taught curriculum. The written curriculum
includes both the curricula from Worcester Public Schools and the curriculum maps from University
Park Campus School. There are clear differences between the two curricula. History teachers report
their curriculum to be fully aligned with WPS, while other departments are inconsistent in their
alignment. The UPCS written curriculum maps are divided into monthly or quarterly time periods. The
content components are general with the exception of the math maps. According to the Endicott survey,
94.1 percent of faculty members agrees that UPCS’s taught curriculum is very clearly aligned with the
UPCS written curriculum. Classroom observations verified that some of the taught curriculum aligns to
the written documents. The principal states that the primary focus for students is to learn how to think
and not to necessarily cover the content outlined in a curriculum map. When the Worcester Public
Schools’ curriculum and the UPCS curriculum maps are more consistently implemented, the school will
improve its ability to ensure that all students are receiving the curriculum as designed. (curriculum
documents, teacher interviews, Endicott Survey)
Effective curricular coordination and vertical articulation exist between and among some
academic areas within the school as well as with sending schools in the district.
Page 25 of 89

UPCS deliberately sets aside time to review and revise curriculum. A portion of the weekly Wednesday
morning staff meeting is spent in departments or grade level teams to align curriculum. Most
departments report significant vertical alignment in grades 7-12 as a result of the time spent together on
curriculum work. The self-study reports that almost all staff members are directly involved in curriculum
evaluation, review, and revision. Two mandatory professional days before the school year, two
voluntary paid professional days after the school year, and two school days during the year when
substitutes are provided are allotted to review curriculum. There is little evidence of curricular
coordination with sending schools. Teachers report variety in the preparedness of incoming 7 th graders
correlating to their sending schools. The 2010 MCAS results indicate that at the end of 7 th grade, 63
percent of students scored proficient or advanced in English, while 41 percent scored proficient or
advanced in math. The 10 th grade scores show clear increases, with 85 percent scoring proficient or
advanced in English and 87 percent scoring proficient or advanced in math. Teachers in 7 th grade
differentiate instruction to account for the differing academic levels of entering students. In addition, 7 th
and 8 th grade students participate in focused literacy and numeracy instruction after-school from 2:30 –
3:30 to increase learning and to improve test scores. The significant time allocated for curriculum
revision provides teachers with a clear picture of the academic path of a student from 7 th through 12 th
grade, ensuring that students are ready to enter college and to be successful. (sending schools’ meeting,
students, teacher interviews, curriculum standard committee meeting).
Staffing levels are adequate to fully implement the classroom instruction; however, instructional
materials, technology, equipment, supplies, facilities, and the resources of the library/media center
are not sufficient to fully implement the curriculum, including the co-curricular programs and
other learning opportunities.
The self-study notes that there are eighteen professional staff members, and 88.9 percent of the UPCS
staff indicates that they believe there is enough staff to deliver the curriculum. The student-to-teacher
Page 26 of 89

atio is 15.3 to 1. A full-time special education teacher carries an official caseload of twenty-eight
students, however, she is available to work with everyone in the school. Only 55.6 percent of the staff
reports enough resources for instructional materials or support for learning opportunities or co-curricular
activities. The lack of technology and the absence of a library/media center or specialist create a
curricular deficit in the educational experience for the students attending University Park Campus
School. While a reliable wireless network is in place, it is under-utilized due to the lack of equipment
within the school. There is no money in the budget to purchase additional equipment. One teacher
reports that only two of the three computers in her classroom work, and there is no plan to fix or replace
the broken computer. A recent and notable technology upgrade to every classroom is the addition of a
mobile cart with an LCD Projector and document reader. While the Goddard Library at Clark University
is available to students, there is no opportunity for students to check-out books unless they are enrolled
in a Clark University class. Most students have no regularly planned access to a library, although all
students can borrow from a small collection of books located in one of the classrooms. The lack of
sufficient instructional materials, technology, equipment, supplies, facilities, and the resources of the
library/media center inhibits the ability of UPCS to ensure that all students can meet the school’s 21 st
century learning expectations for student learning. (students, teacher interviews, classroom
observations, curriculum standard committee meeting)
The district provides the school’s professional staff with sufficient personnel, time, and financial
resources for ongoing and collaborative development, evaluation, and revision of the curriculum
using assessment results. UPCS makes use of the time and resources provided by the district, and
supplements district resources with additional grant money and in-kind support, such as the support
UPCS receives from Clark University. According to Worcester Public School administrators,
department heads participate in district-wide curriculum development. Individual teachers participate in
developing the UPCS curriculum. Teachers and the principal report that time is devoted to curriculum
Page 27 of 89

development during the two professional days at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year in
addition to time allocated during the weekly Wednesday morning faculty meetings. The district funds
the two pre-school year professional days. UPCS has found creative ways to add professional time,
including the Wednesday morning meetings, middle of the year professional development time, and
post-year professional development. UPCS has also developed creative ways to afford the additional
professional development time, specifically by utilizing Clark University’s six Master of Arts in
Teaching students assigned to the school and by capitalizing on the generosity of Clark University.
Members of the professional staff report active involvement in the process of ongoing curriculum
development. UPCS uses Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data to inform the
7 th and 8 th grade curriculum. UPCS implements a numeracy curriculum, added last year, to address the
needs of students in the ‘Needs Improvement’ and ‘Warning' categories. The result is a significant
increase in the number of students earning ‘Advanced’ and ‘Proficient’ on the MCAS exams in 8 th grade.
In addition, the redesigned senior year is a result of data collected from the 2010 Alumni Surveys.
UPCS staff has a plan to increase college graduation rates and to decrease the number of UPCS students
who test into remediation classes at colleges. The copious amount of time staff members reflect on and
revise the curriculum leads to improvements for all students. This is particularly evident in alumni data.
From the 2003 and 2007 Alumni Surveys, the portion of students who earned or are on-track to
complete a bachelor's degree within six years rose from 52 percent to 88 percent. The significant time
allocated for curriculum review and revision ensures that the UPCS curriculum is a living document
that is responsive to identified needs resulting in improved student performance. (sending schools’
meeting, self-study, teacher interviews).
Commendations
1. The existence of curriculum maps for all courses
2. The clarity and detail of the grade 7 and 8 math department maps
Page 28 of 89

3. The opportunites for authentic learning experiences both in and out of the classroom
4. The out-of-school internships in the junior and senior years that prepare students for life after
high school
5. The sophomore Gateway project that emphasizes cross-curricular learning
6. The amount of time allocated for curriculum review and revision
7. The high level of student performance despite the lack of educational resources
8. The effective use of Clark MAT students to facilitate collaborative development, evaluation, and
revision of curriculum
9. The use of MCAS and Alumni Survey data to revise the curriculum to meet identified areas of
need
Recommendations
1. Explicitly embed the 21 st century learning expectations throughout the curriculum
2. Develop a common school-wide unit plan format that includes essential questions, concepts,
content, skills, instructional strategies, the school’s 21 st century learning expectations, and
assessment practices that include the use of school-wide analytic and course-specific rubrics
3. Incorporate higher-order thinking in more learning activities and assignments
4. Integrate the ethical and effective use of technology throughout the instructional program
5. Align the taught curriculum with the written curriculum
6. Improve curriculum articulation with the sending schools
7. Acquire additional technology tools to support students in the achievement of the 21 st century
learning expectations
8. Increase resources and staffing for library/media center to fully implement curricular connections
between library/media and classes, including the opportunities to borrow appropriate grade level
books
Page 29 of 89

3 Instruction
Teaching and Learning Standard
The quality of instruction is the single most important factor in students’ achievement of the school’s 21 st
century learning expectations. Instruction is responsive to student needs, deliberate in its design and
delivery, and grounded in the school’s core values, beliefs, and learning expectations. Instruction is
supported by research in best practices. Teachers are reflective and collaborative about their
instructional strategies and collaborative with their colleagues to improve student learning.
1. Teachers’ instructional practices are continuously examined to ensure consistency with the school’s
core values, beliefs, and 21 st century learning expectations.
2. Teachers’ instructional practices support the achievement of the school’s 21 st century learning expectations
by:
personalizing instruction
engaging students in cross-disciplinary learning
engaging students as active and self-directed learners
emphasizing inquiry, problem-solving, and higher order thinking
applying knowledge and skills to authentic tasks
engaging students in self-assessment and reflection
integrating technology.
3. Teachers adjust their instructional practices to meet the needs of each student by:
using formative assessment, especially during instructional time
strategically differentiating
purposefully organizing group learning activities
providing additional support and alternative strategies within the regular classroom.
4. Teachers, individually and collaboratively, improve their instructional practices by:
using student achievement data from a variety of formative and summative assessments
examining student work
using feedback from a variety of sources, including students, other teachers, supervisors, and
parents
examining current research
engaging in professional discourse focused on instructional practice.
5. Teachers, as adult learners and reflective practitioners, maintain expertise in their content area and in
content-specific instructional practices.
Page 30 of 89

Instruction
CONCLUSIONS
Teachers’ instructional practices are continuously examined but are not necessarily linked to the
school’s core values, beliefs, and 21 st century learning expectations. The school’s instructional coach
observes classes regularly and sends out a weekly Friday Focus email delineating the positive practices
he has observed. However, he rarely mentions the school’s 21 st century learning expectations in
connection to the observed instructional practices. While the Endicott survey indicates that 100 percent
of the staff believes that teachers continuously examine their instructional practices to ensure
consistency with the school’s core values and beliefs, direct interviews with teachers indicate that they
do not overtly or consistently incorporate the school’s core values and beliefs about learning into
instructional practices, but state that these are “known” to the students and they happen “organically.”
Interviewed teachers do not specifically articulate the 21 st century learning expectations, but do say they
are committed to the ideal that all students can learn and can succeed at high levels. The five parents on
the parent panel indicate little awareness of the school's specific 21 st century learning expectations other
than the expectation that all students will go to college. Direct observations indicate that the school’s 21 st
century learning expectations are inconsistently incorporated into classroom practice. The school
committee does not examine the school’s instructional practice to ensure alignment with the 21 st century
learning expectations but reports satisfaction that UPCS students, “do well on state tests and go to
college.” However, responding to results of the 2010 Alumni Survey, the school has created the position
of Alumni Support Coach and has redesigned senior year to better prepare students for college. These
changes address two of the school’s ten 21 st century learning expectations. When instructional practices
are continuously examined and reflected upon as they relate to the school’s 21 st century learning
expectations, teachers will be able to ensure consistency which will provide students with the instruction
Page 31 of 89

necessary to achieve the school’s 21 st century learning expectations. (self-study, Endicott survey,
parents, students, teachers, teacher interviews, classroom observations)
Teachers’ instructional practices support to varying degrees the achievement of the school’s 21 st
century learning expectations by frequently personalizing instruction; often engaging students as
active and self-directed learners and emphasizing inquiry and problem-solving; less frequently
involving higher order thinking; occasionally applying knowledge and skills to authentic tasks;
regularly engaging students in self-assessment and reflection; but rarely engaging students in
cross-disciplinary learning and integrating technology. Instruction at University Park Campus
School aligns with Jobs for the Future's Common Instructional Framework that consists of six
instructional strategies. These strategies directly support students' progress toward mastery of some of
the school’s 21 st century learning expectations, but several expectations are not adequately supported by
these six strategies.
Collaborative group work, an instructional strategy rich in possibilities for personalization, is first in
the Framework. The self-study and the Endicott survey indicate the staff personalizes instruction both
during and after regular school hours in a variety of ways. Representing approximately 30 percent of the
school’s families, 95 percent of the parents responding to the survey also believe teachers personalize
instruction for their children, but 56.9 percent of the students surveyed believes this is true. This
discrepancy is significant because students are the primary consumers of the teaching and learning
interaction. Interviewed students report that some personalization of instruction does take place, and
direct observation of of many classes reveals only a few in which students were working in
purposefully arranged groups. . Specific observations include an 11 th grade math class, a middle school
English class and middle school science class, but the purposefulness of the groupings was not entirely
clear. Despite those examples, the balance of classroom observations reveals employment of whole
group direct instruction for entire class periods, a strategy limited in its capacity for differentiation or
Page 32 of 89

personalization. Fortunately, the intimate size of the school and the organization of time enable a very
high level of interaction between students and teachers. It is clear that teachers know each student and
their particular needs very well.
Data is mixed regarding students as active and self-directed learners. According to the Endicott
survey, 100 percent of staff and 96.7 percent of parents agree that teachers engage students as active and
self-directed learners. Direct observation of classroom instruction reveals inconsistent student
engagement in self-directed learning. The 10 th grade Gateway project does afford all students the
opportunity for self-directed learning.
The school’s self-study reports that daily instruction at the school centers “squarely upon inquiry,
problem-solving, and higher order thinking.” The assertion is supported by the staff responses to the
Endicott survey. Interviewed students report that teachers in some classes ask deep and probing
questions. Student work and classroom observations provide minimal evidence of higher order thinking
or problem-solving.
Over 75 percent of students agree that they have opportunities to apply what they are learning in
school to experiences outside the classroom. The self-study reports that this occurs mainly during the
10 th grade Gateway project and through junior and senior internships. During the visit, few classroom
observations revealed students engaging in authentic learning activities during instruction and few of the
samples of student work represent authentic tasks.
The self-study reports that students not only engage in self-reflection at critical points along their
UPCS tenure and throughout each school year, but also connect their learning to the school-wide
expectations. The study goes on to say that in most subjects, students “evaluate their own progress on a
variety of assessments and assignments.” The collection of student work shows one set of middle school
science portfolios, and several math assignments, that include some student self-assessments. Direct
observations confirm this, but only for some math, science, and art classrooms. According to the self-
Page 33 of 89

study, teacher interviews and student interviews, students rate themselves once a year on the degree to
which they have met the school-wide 21 st century learning expectations.
The Common Instructional Framework does not directly address cross-disciplinary learning. The
Framework's scaffolding strategy specifically states that, “Teachers use this strategy to connect students
with previous learning in a content area as well as with previous learning in an earlier grade.” This
suggests that scaffolding is limited to within content areas. The self-study reports that cross-disciplinary
learning is “fostered by writing across the curriculum, by deliberate connections made between various
courses, by the curriculum in the summer academies for 7 th and 9 th grade students, and in the design of
the Gateway projects at the end of 8 th , 10 th , and 12 th grades.” While there is ample evidence of writing in
math and science classes and of language use in art, the only evidence of true cross-disciplinary learning
is the 10 th grade Gateway project. In fact, a senior who has been in the school since 7 th grade reports that
she never experienced a unit of study where two teachers from different subjects have taught and
assessed together.
Technology integration is not referenced in the Common Instructional Framework and is rarely
employed to enhance student learning. According to the self-study, students do not have enough access
to technology within the building. Members of the school committee recognize the deficiencies in the
technology available to students and teachers at UPCS as largely due to the school’s physical plant but
indicate no plans to correct this situation in the near term. All teachers have access to ELMOs
(document camera connected to LCD projector), iPads, and projectors, and some teachers use their
personal laptops for school use, but technology integration into instruction is inconsistent. When the
Common Instructional Framework is complemented by strategies that support all of the school's 21 st
century learning expectations, students will have more opportunities to practice and achieve all of the
school’s 21 st century learning expectations. (Common Instructional Framework, self-study, students,
classroom observations, teachers, student work, school committee panel, Endicott survey, parents)
Page 34 of 89

Teachers sometimes adjust their instructional practices to meet the needs of each student by
occasionally using formative assessment, especially during instructional time; periodically using
strategic differentiation; sporadically organizing group learning activities with purpose; and often
providing additional support and alternative strategies within the regular classroom. The selfstudy
reports the extensive use of formative assessments in the classroom to provide feedback on student
learning which teachers use to modify instruction. Formative assessment during instruction occurs in
some math, art, science and English classes; however, in most other classes there is no evidence of
formative assessments during instruction. There is evidence of some formative assessment in samples of
student work in math and science. The self-study indicates that teachers use multiple strategies for
differentiation within the classroom. The part-time special education teacher reports that she works
closely with teachers to adjust instruction to meet the needs of identified students. Nearly 88 percent of
the students responding on the Endicott survey agrees with the statement that teachers use a variety of
teaching strategies in their classes and 100 percent of the staff reports that they regularly use
differentiated instructional practices to meet the needs of all students. Parents also report that teachers
differentiate instruction for their children. However, direct classroom observation, interviews with
teachers and students, and examination of student work reveal inconsistent use of differentiation. On the
Endicott survey, 98 percent of students reports that teachers use groups in their classes, while 94.1
percent of the staff reports that they adjust their instructional practices by organizing group learning
activities. Again, classroom observations indicate inconsistent use of purposeful grouping to meet the
needs of all students. Several students report that they work in groups in many classes, but that they can
“sit with whoever they want.” The self-study makes no mention of the extensive use of additional
support and alternative strategies observed by the visiting committee and discussed by parents, students
and teachers. Additionally, 98.3 percent of the parents reports that teachers provide additional support to
their children when needed. Teachers and students report that teachers are often available before and
after school to assist students. Incoming seventh graders attend a three-week summer program to
Page 35 of 89

prepare them for culture and expectations of UPCS. When teachers adjust their instructional practices
based on effective use of formative assessment during instructional time, regular and purposeful group
learning activities and provision of additional support and alternative strategies within the regular
classroom, opportunities for all students' to learn at their highest levels will be enhanced. (self-study,
Endicott survey, parent meeting, teacher meeting, student interviews, classroom observation, student
work)
Teachers improve their instructional practices by examining student work individually but not
collaboratively; occasionally using student achievement data from a variety of formative and
summative assessments; sometimes using feedback from a variety of sources, including students,
other teachers, supervisors, and parents; examining current research in some areas; and regularly
but informally engaging in professional discourse focused on instructional practice. According to
the Endicott survey, 100 percent of the teachers report that they improve their instructional practices by
using student achievement data from a variety of formative and summative assessments. The self-study
also reports that teachers review data from outside assessments (MAP, MCAS, AP and SAT), both
individually and collaboratively, to improve their instructional practice. Some teachers report regularly
examining formative and summative assessments and using student feedback to improve their
instructional practice, but that this takes place individually. The teachers report that once every quarter,
they collaboratively look at students’ grades to determine students’ levels of achievement; however, they
can not articulate what, for example, an “80 percent” means for each of the subject areas. Again, 100
percent of the teachers report on the Endicott survey that they have formal opportunities to examine
student work to improve their instructional practices; however, during both individual interviews and the
panel discussion, teachers report that they do not formally and collectively review student work and that
there is no formal process for collaboratively examining student work or engaging in tuning/norming
protocols. On the Endicott survey 63.3 percent of the parents report that their child’s teachers ask for
Page 36 of 89

feedback about their instructional practices, while 74.1 percent of the students report this. Some teachers
report that they adjust or improve their instructional practice based upon such feedback. Several teachers
report that they use feedback from the instructional coach to improve their practice. Teachers report that
they informally talk to one another about student work. They also report that they regularly talk to
parents and have parent meetings, though not all teachers report adjusting instructional practice as a
result of such meetings. The self-study reports that most faculty members examine current research by
subscribing to The Marshall Memo, an online summary of research in K-12 education. The teacher panel
reports that they all have read David Conley's College Knowledge and that the instructional coach
occasionally sends out recent research articles, chapters from books or links to articles that inform
instruction. Teachers also report that they share information they find in books and articles about recent
research with their colleagues. The self-study reports that teachers share instructional practices during
faculty meetings and that the “weekly faculty meeting on Wednesday morning represents a model of
professional discourse.” The self-study also reports that the “Rounds,” a peer-to-peer classroom
observation and discussion protocol for teachers to examine their practice, provides a model for
professional discourse. However, during the teacher interviews, the teachers and the instructional coach
report that the Wednesday faculty meeting time is often consumed with discussion of individual student
issues leaving little time for professional discourse about instruction. Teachers indicate that they
participate as observers in “Rounds” once or twice a year and that most “Rounds” are limited to outside
visitors observing classes. However, teachers do report that they informally engage in professional
discourse about instructional practice. The self-study reports that teachers actively engage in a variety of
professional work outside of the school such as creating and presenting workshops and working on
curriculum committees. While the culture at UCPS clearly values improvement in instructional practice,
more deliberate purposeful, regular, collaborative examination and discourse will increase the rate at
which instruction can improve. (self-study, Endicott survey, parents, students, teachers, teacher
interviews, classroom observation)
Page 37 of 89

The teachers, as adult learners, maintain expertise in their content areas and in content-specific
educational practices. One hundred percent of the teachers and 98.3 percent of the parents responding
to the Endicott survey report that they maintain such expertise. Several teachers report that they
regularly share books on general or content-specific instructional practices with their colleagues. It is a
practice in the school for most teachers to post prominently on their classroom door the book or books
they are currently reading outside of school so that students see the teachers as lifelong learners. The
self-study reports that teachers access research through their partnership with Jobs For the Future (JFF).
The school has an instructional coach who provides selected articles from professional journals and
books for teachers and sends out a report each Friday on best instructional practices seen in the school.
Some teachers say that they try to read and reflect on the materials selected by the instructional coach
when they can find time. Teachers report that they attend numerous professional development
opportunities, workshops, and conferences in their field, but nearly all teachers report that they do not
participate in professional development offered by the district. The school leadership indicates that
instructional emphasis is on teaching students to be learners more than on teaching content. Because
teachers maintain expertise in their content area, they are able to employ strategies to improve student
learning. (teachers interview, instructional coach, teachers, self-study)
Commendations
1. The reflection on practice that resulted in the revamping of the junior and senior year
experiences to better prepare students for college
2. The addition of the instructional coach position
3. The implementation of the Common Instructional Framework
4. The Gateway projects that personalize instruction for all students and engage students as selfdirected
and reflective learners
Page 38 of 89

5. The internships and the 10 th grade Gateway project as opportunities for authentic learning
6. Teachers' deep knowledge of their students allowing them to intuitively personalize instruction
7. Student's access to assistance from teachers before and after school
8. The use of data from standardized testing to inform instructional practice, particularly in the
writing to learn and numeracy initiatives
9. The culture of informed professional discourse
10. The commitment of the faculty to their own lifelong learning
Recommendations
1. Ensure that the school’s core values, beliefs about learning, and 21 st century learning
expectations are included in the examination and development of teachers' instructional practice
2. Increase personalization of student learning
3. Incorporate instructional practices that increase support of and student engagement with 21 st
century learning expectations
4. Provide opportunities for students to engage in cross-disciplinary units of study and authentic
learning experiences across the grades
5. Integrate the regular use of technology into student learning activities and instruction
6. Ensure the effective use of formative assessment during instructional time
7. Provide professional development on effective use of purposefully organized group learning
activities
8. Ensure that differentiation is used regularly in instruction as well as in curriculum development
and assessment
Page 39 of 89

9. Implement a formal process for frequent collaborative examination of student work across the
grades and subjects
10. Formalize the use of the “Rounds” model as an internal peer-to-peer process for improving
instruction
11. Develop a regular process for providing specific and timely feedback to improve instructional
practice
Page 40 of 89

4 Assessment of and for Student Learning
Teaching and Learning Standard
Assessment informs students and stakeholders of progress and growth toward meeting the school's 21 st
century learning expectations. Assessment results are shared and discussed on a regular basis to
improve student learning. Assessment results inform teachers about student achievement in order to
adjust curriculum and instruction.
1. The professional staff continuously employs a formal process, based on school-wide rubrics, to assess
whole-school and individual student progress in achieving the school’s 21 st century learning
expectations.
2. The school’s professional staff communicates:
individual student progress in achieving the school’s 21 st century learning expectations to
students and their families
the school’s progress in achieving the school’s 21 st century learning expectations to the
school community.
3. Professional staff collects, disaggregates, and analyzes data to identify and respond to inequities in
student achievement.
4. Prior to each unit of study, teachers communicate to students the school’s applicable 21 st century
learning expectations and related unit-specific learning goals to be assessed.
5. Prior to summative assessments, teachers provide students with the corresponding rubrics.
6. In each unit of study, teachers employ a range of assessment strategies, including formative and
summative assessments.
7. Teachers collaborate regularly in formal ways on the creation, analysis, and revision of formative
and summative assessments, including common assessments.
8. Teachers provide specific, timely, and corrective feedback to ensure students revise and improve
their work.
9. Teachers regularly use formative assessment to inform and adapt their instruction for the purpose of
improving student learning.
10. Teachers and administrators, individually and collaboratively, examine a range of evidence of student
learning for the purpose of revising curriculum and improving instructional practice, including
all of the following:
student work
common course and common grade-level assessments
individual and school-wide progress in achieving the school’s 21 st century learning expectations
standardized assessments
Page 41 of 89

data from sending schools, receiving schools, and post-secondary institutions
survey data from current students and alumni.
11. Grading and reporting practices are regularly reviewed and revised to ensure alignment with the
school’s core values and beliefs about learning.
Page 42 of 89

Assessment of and for Student Learning
CONCLUSIONS
UPCS staff employs a formal process, applied once a year based on school-wide holistic rubrics, to
assess whole-school and individual student progress in achieving the school’s 21 st century learning
expectations. Once every spring each student’s team of teachers meets to assess the student’s progress
in achieving the school's 21 st century learning expectations. Students also self-assess in their advisory
groups, and discuss the comparison between the teachers’ assessments and their self-assessment. Results
are aggregated for each grade level and placed on a spreadsheet that is reviewed by the faculty.
However, the school-wide rubrics are not applied specifically to student work, and multiple
opportunities for students to practice and achieve the expectations throughout the year are not explicitly
provided. Gateway presentations in grades 8, 10, and 12 demonstrate student progress toward the 21 st
century learning expectations and are assessed formally by several faculty members using a projectspecific
rubric. The 12 th grade Gateway presentations are viewed by members of the community as well.
When students’ progress toward achieving the 21st century learning expectations is assessed more
frequently than once a year, students’ opportunities to practice and achieve the school’s 21st century
learning expectations will increase. (teachers, students, spreadsheet of students’ scores, students,
teacher interviews, curriculum documents)
UPCS’s professional staff communicates individual student progress in achieving the school’s 21 st
century learning expectations to students and their families and communicates the school’s
progress in achieving the school’s 21 st century learning expectations to the school community.
Each student’s progress toward achieving the 21 st century learning expectations is mailed home
accompanied by a letter of explanation. The scores collected from the annual assessment of student
progress toward achievement of the school’s 21 st century learning expectations are compiled and placed
onto a spreadsheet. The only spreadsheet available was from the 2010-2011 school year. The self-study
Page 43 of 89

eports that these aggregate scores are posted on the school’s website, but access to this document on the
website was unavailable during the visit. Communication of progress to the students, their families,
and the larger community provides support to students as they work to achieve the 21 st century learning
expectations. (students, school website, parents, self-study, teacher interviews)
The professional staff collects, disaggregates, and analyzes a wide variety of data to identify and
respond to inequities in student achievement, but very little of that data relates directly to the 21 st
century learning expectations. On two professional development days prior to the beginning of the
2012-13 school year, teachers met in departments to review data from the MAP and MCAS testing to
develop intervention and enrichment strategies. Teachers completed an item and/or strand analysis to
determine individual and group performance on specific topics. The middle school teachers examined
MCAS data and sorted students into three groups according to their math and English MCAS scores:
red (at risk), yellow, and green. One aspect of this analysis was the examination of individual student
growth through the low growth percentage indicator to identify students who received acceptable scores
but who were not making appropriate progress. The school then created a mandatory after-school
program for grades 7 and 8 to accommodate each group of students: students in the green group are
provided with additional challenges and students in the red group are provided with additional support in
identified areas of need. To address the school’s accountability plan, data from SAT, AP, and MCAS
assessments are analyzed and the staff creates goals and specific action plans to address the inequities.
For example, in order to address and support lower scoring low income and Hispanic middle school
students, teachers agree to use collaborative group work as a means of differentiating to ensure access
for targeted student populations. A few classroom observations confirm that students work in groups,
explaining concepts and problem-solving as a group. Teachers also implement a school-wide numeracy
initiative to address lagging math scores. The only opportunities for direct data collection on student
performance towards meeting the 21 st century learning expectations are the annual assessment by each
Page 44 of 89

student's teaching team, the annual student self-assessment and the Gateway Projects for students in
grades 8 10 and 12. Assessments in the day to day curriculum are not currently used to collect data no
21 st century learning expectations. . When The emphasis on data collection and analysis and related
improvement plans includes multiple and frequent measures of supports students' achievement of the
21 st century learning expectations, the staff can better identify and respond to inequities. (teachers,
students, classroom observations, the school accountability plan)
Prior to each unit of study, few teachers communicate to students the school’s applicable 21 st
century learning expectations and related unit-specific learning goals to be assessed. While the
major assessments and skills are listed in some curriculum maps, little evidence suggests that unit goals
are presented to students prior to each unit of study. In a few classroom observations, during which
teachers were beginning new units, no 21 st century or unit-specific learning expectations were conveyed
verbally or in writing. In the English curriculum binder, there is a chart in which key skills are aligned
and built over the students’ six years at the school. For example, to develop student academic discussion
skills and the ability for students to talk to each other, literacy circles and Socratic seminars are
introduced in the 7 th grade; Jigsaw activities and seminar presentations are introduced in the 9 th grade; by
the 12 th grade students are expected to participate successfully in open and whole-class discussions.
However, there are no specific unit plans which detail how the above learning goals are introduced at the
beginning of any unit of study. In the science curriculum binder, the goals of the department are clearly
articulated; however, there is only some similarity between the 21 st century learning expectations and the
articulated science department goals. In a few classes, weekly schedules of concepts and activities are
handed out at the beginning of the week, but specific learning goals are not articulated. In fact, some
teachers and the principal state that as an inquiry-based teaching and learning strategy, learning goals
should not be shared with students prior to a unit of study but instead should be discovered during the
unit. One social studies syllabus includes essential questions for each unit of study and these questions
Page 45 of 89

provide a cursory introduction to unit goals at the beginning of the year. The format, location, and
presentation of learning goals are inconsistent across departments and vary greatly from teacher to
teacher. When teachers consistently communicate unit goals to students prior to each unit of study,
students will be aware of which 21st century learning expectations will be learned, practiced and
assessed. (curriculum binders, teachers, curriculum maps, syllabi, classroom observations)
Prior to summative assessments, some teachers provide students with the corresponding rubrics.
Many of the interviewed students report that rubrics are supplied before essays and projects and that
their teachers clearly explain the criteria. At least one teacher employs both student-created rubrics and
rubrics created by the Massachusetts Department of Education to instruct students on how to apply a
rubric to assess the quality of an MCAS open response math problem. The students use the rubric to
assess their own writing in preparation for the upcoming 10 th grade math MCAS. Another teacher
reports creating a writing rubric with the class and using that rubric to assess the students’ writing after
reading a specific author and creating a list of the devices employed by the author. Teachers report that
student involvement in the creation and application of rubrics leads to a greater student investment and
understanding. The science department uses the same three rubrics to assess all science labs, input and
output notebooks, and the science research project; however, not all of these are analytic rubrics.
Although these science rubrics are often used for formative assessments, summative assessments require
students to display some of these same skills. The English department has rubrics, not necessarily
analytic, for essay assignments, and students report receiving these when an essay is assigned. Students
also report scoring peers’ Gateway projects, helping their own Gateway project preparation. The 10 th
grade Gateway rubric clearly reflects elements of the school-wide academic, social, and civic
expectation rubrics. Some teachers introduce rubrics before many summative assessments; however, the
rubrics vary greatly, even when assessing similar tasks. For example, the science research rubric is quite
different from the research portion of the 10 th grade Gateway project rubric. When teachers consistently
Page 46 of 89

provide rubrics prior to summative assessments, students’ progress and growth toward meeting the
school’s 21st century learning expectations will improve. (curriculum binders, students, teachers,
classroom observations)
In some units of study, most teachers employ a range of assessment strategies, including formative
and summative assessments. Clearly, most content areas utilize a range of assessment strategies
starting with formative assessments that embed skills assessed in a summative assessment. For example,
in biology, students receive laboratory report guidelines. Lab activities and summative lab reports
provide opportunities for students to practice and to get feedback on these skills. A science inquiry
prompt asks students to explore and to create a lab report, providing preparation for end of unit
summative assessments echoing the science MCAS expectations. Work samples of various labs confirm
the assessment of lab report skills. Formative assessments typically align with summative assessments
(essays, projects, tests, input/output notebooks ). Formative writing assignments were evident in English
classes. Various sources provided evidence that the formative writing assignments aligned with
summative assessments. Formative assessments are evident in math including informal observations,
verbal dialogue, collaborative student review, and student presentations. These assessments are in
preparation for unit level summative assessments and for the MCAS in the spring. However, the depth
of knowledge demands of summative assessments varied greatly across content areas within grade
levels. For example, one English writing assignment required strategic thinking while a social studies
unit test at the same grade level required mostly simple recall and reproduction responses. When grade
levels develop consistent demands, students will have more opportunities to practice and to perform
challenging levels of 21st century skills. (classroom observations, self-study, student work, teacher
interviews)
Page 47 of 89

Teachers collaborate frequently, but informally and inconsistently on the creation, analysis, and
revision of formative and summative assessments, including common assessments. The size of the
school greatly affects this process. While the vast majority of the professional staff collaborates in an
informal manner, much of the collaboration appears to be around individual student support. Staff and
meeting notes confirm that the majority of Wednesday’s staff meetings are centered upon student
support, which leaves little structured time for the development of common assessments. Teachers are
quite thoughtful in their creation, analysis, and revision of assessments, but do work individually on
these assessments mainly because multiple sections of a course are usually taught by the same teacher. It
follows that classroom-based assessments are common among sections. Teachers report sharing teaching
and assessment ideas frequently but informally. Teachers also report spending a few days every year at
Clark University working on their curriculum maps, discussing and comparing them. The self-study
reports that the entire staff collaborates in the design of the Gateway projects and their corresponding
rubrics. As the self-study reports, the math department implements a common rubric to assess problemsolving
and communication skills. Classroom visits confirm the application of this rubric in some math
classes. The science department also clearly collaborates to create common rubrics employed to assess
inquiry skills and student comprehension. It does not appear, however, that a formal mechanism exists
for teachers to share the assessments and rubrics they develop or the scores they gather from those
assessments and rubrics. No formal process exists for continuous revision and collaboration. Classroom
formative assessments across the school are somewhat consistent because of the emphasis on the six
teaching strategies in the Common Instructional Framework. However, the level of rigor and analytical
thinking demanded by summative assessments varies greatly from class to class, and from department to
department. The informal nature of the collaboration around assessment limits the degree to which the
good work that individual teachers do creating, analyzing and revising assessments can be shared and
transferred across disciplines and grade levels. (teachers, curriculum binders, self-assessment,
classroom observation)
Page 48 of 89

Many teachers provide specific, timely, and corrective feedback to ensure students revise and
improve their work. Many teachers provide verbal feedback to students during class discussions.
Some classes are small enough that every student can receive some form of individualized instruction
from the teacher. Parents and students confirm that teachers make themselves available daily, both
before and after school, to work with students to revise and to improve their work. This individualized
feedback is essential to ensuring student success on the Gateway projects. Through these venues,
students receive immediate and valuable feedback. Teachers also report using email to communicate
with students. According to the curriculum binders and evidence boxes, class content is clearly
scaffolded and students engage in multi-step processes that often build to a substantial final product.
Teachers report the ability to know if students are struggling by reviewing their completed steps and
intervening before the completion of the final product. The evidence boxes and examples of student
work provide little evidence of written feedback on student products. Worksheets and essays have little
written feedback, and even rough drafts show little instruction to guide the student in writing the final
draft. Students report that the primary mode of feedback is verbal. The self-study does report that oneon-one
conferences are arranged to review student essays and that students may rewrite papers if they
receive low scores. Classroom observations provide evidence that whole-class lessons are designed to
assist students in interpreting and applying rubrics. In a math class, students analyze the problemsolving
process of another student by finding and explaining flaws. Students thus receive feedback from
each other, with teacher oversight, and are taught how to evaluate their own work. The school’s size,
culture, and the extent to which the students have access to the professional staff provide the students
with feedback and opportunities to revise their work as needed to achieve the 21 st century learning
expectations. (self-study, teachers, parents, students, classroom observations)
Page 49 of 89

Many teachers regularly use formative assessments to inform and adapt their instruction for the
purpose of improving student learning. Students report that if they feel confused about a concept or
are struggling with an academic problem, the teachers work with them until they fully understand the
concept. Both students and parents report that teachers work consistently with individual students on
projects and classwork before and after school. Teachers report that they look for evidence of student
comprehension in their grading and then design lesson plans to re-teach concepts with which students
are struggling. One teacher, after looking at student work, groups students according to the concepts
with which they struggle and creates stations for students to address specific weaknesses in their
understanding. Students report that if a small group demonstrates competency in certain areas that
teachers will create separate assignments, readings, and assessments to challenge them. Students are
also encouraged to choose appropriate yet challenging tasks for themselves, and the teachers give them
the opportunity to do so. Groups are formed heterogeneously, and students often teach each other.
During one classroom observation, a student explained a pattern found in a series of pre-calculus
problems to another student who did not at first comprehend the pattern. Teachers also provide direct
instruction in response to student misunderstandings. In another class, the teacher clarified the outcomes
of a historical event when a student misstated them. Many teachers are continually adjusting their
instruction based on verbal formative assessments. Although many teachers are actively assessing
students in writing as well, no written evidence or documentation was found of lesson plans being
adapted in response to collected formative assessments. However, some teachers detect patterns of
misunderstanding, and because they teach the same courses each year, implement different strategies
and adjust their scaffolding in anticipation of the common misunderstanding. One teacher anticipates a
flaw in student design of fractals, and although she gives the students space to make mistakes and to
learn from them, she also plans her interventions to address those common misunderstandings and
misapplications. Many UPCS teachers respond to the verbal comments and questions their students
Page 50 of 89

articulate adjusting their teaching in response to ensure that students are able to meet the relevant
learning expectations. (teachers, students, parents, classroom observations)
Often teachers and the principal, individually and collaboratively, examine a range of evidence of
student learning for the purpose of revising curriculum and improving instructional practice,
including student work, individual and school-wide progress in achieving the school’s 21 st century
learning expectations, standardized assessments, data from sending schools, post-secondary
institutions and survey data from current students and alumni. Based on a review of numeracy
MAP data and classroom assessments, the administrator and teaching staff implement the extended
seventh and eighth grade day to provide increased time for developing math skills. Using school-wide
rubrics, once a year all students are evaluated and scored on their progress with the school-wide 21 st
century learning expectations. Teachers collaborate on this process by comparing rating scores on social
and civic expectations and then conduct a portfolio review of student work. Staff members have begun
to review data from sending schools in an effort to address curricular needs of incoming students. Due
to the size of the school, each course is taught by one teacher; therefore, course and grade level
assessments are defacto common assessments. Teachers collaborate informally regarding grade level
assessments. There is no formal documentation or evidence supporting the articulation of or
collaboration on assessments among grade level teams or within departments. Results from alumni
surveys inform the change in practice of assessments for seniors. During the senior year a college model
of assessment puts less emphasis on classwork and homework and more on major assignments. The
faculty as a whole is responding to alumni survey data suggesting that students lack the ability to
persevere in the face of college-level demands by emphasizing persistence during the completion of
challenging tasks and the self-advocacy skills to access support resources in college. For example, every
senior is required to make at least one appointment at the Clark University Writing Center, a resource
that will likely be available to them at any university. While teachers are reflective about student
Page 51 of 89

learning and about ways to revise curriculum and to adjust instructional strategies based on assessment
results, a continuous and intentional process for reviewing assessments vertically and horizontally will
further assure students’ progress in meeting 21 st century learning expectations. (teacher interviews,
Meeting the College Readiness Challenge report, curriculum binders, school accountability plan,
Alumni Survey)
Grading and reporting practices have not been reviewed and revised to ensure alignment with the
school’s core values and beliefs about learning. The self-study states that departments meet annually
to formally review grading practices, but no evidence shows that teachers review or discuss current best
practice regarding grading. Grading practices are inconsistent from teacher to teacher and the school has
not established a grading policy. Additionally, the scoring aligned with grading and specific rubrics is
inconsistent among grades and content classes. The school does effectively report student progress to
students, families, and the community. Report cards are mailed home four times a year; progress reports
are sent home every five weeks in the high school and biweekly for middle schools students.
Additionally, WPS is in the process of setting up an on-line grading/reporting system for teachers,
students, and families. Some UPCS staff currently use on-line grading programs which students can
access. One of these on-line grading programs has an email component which students can utilize to
communicate with teachers regarding grades and assignments. While there is evidence that grading
policies are shared with students via class syllabi, this does not occur in all classes. Developing
consistent grading strategies across grade levels and content areas will facilitate students'
understanding of their actual progress toward achieving the school-wide 21 st century learning
expectations. (self-study, student work, teachers, principal, parents, students)
Commendations
Page 52 of 89

1. The authentic assessment opportunities for students to demonstrate progress towards 21 st century
learning expectations provided by the Gateway projects
2. The amount of time and attention faculty dedicate to the analysis of academic performance data
3. The use of assessment results to deploy innovative programs such as the after-school program
and the numeracy program
4. The focus on the student low growth percentile to ensure that students are making appropriate
academic progress
Recommendations
1. Increase the frequency and broaden the scope of assessments used to collect data on student
achievement of the 21 st century learning expectations
2. Align assessments with content and skill-based analytic rubrics derived from the school-wide
rubrics
3. Expand the creation and use of effective and rigorous formative and summative assessments
4. Review and revise grading policy so it aligns with core values and beliefs and ensure consistency
across all teachers and subject areas
5. Allocate protected time for teachers to collaboratively create, analyze and revise assessments,
and to consistently evaluate and analyze the data collected from the assessments
6. Monitor and reevaluate ongoing intervention programs that have already been implemented
7. Dedicate time for grade-level and department-level teams to track and analyze assessment data
for the purpose of developing and guiding curriculum and instructional practices for optimal
vertical and horizontal alignment
Page 53 of 89

8. Communicate the related 21 st century learning expectations and unit-specific learning goals at the
beginning of each unit of study
Page 54 of 89

COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS
SUPPORT STANDARDS
__________________________________________
SCHOOL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP
__________________________________________
SCHOOL RESOURCES FOR LEARNING
__________________________________________
COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOR LEARNING
__________________________________________
Page 55 of 89

5 School Culture and Leadership
Support Standard
The school culture is equitable and inclusive, and it embodies the school's foundational core values and beliefs about student
learning. It is characterized by reflective, collaborative, and constructive dialogue about research-based practices that
support high expectations for the learning of all students. The leadership of the school fosters a safe, positive culture by
promoting learning, cultivating shared leadership, and engaging all members of the school community in efforts to improve
teaching and learning.
1. The school community consciously and continuously builds a safe, positive, respectful, and supportive culture
that fosters student responsibility for learning and results in shared ownership, pride, and high expectations
for all.
2. The school is equitable, inclusive, and fosters heterogeneity where every student over the course of the high
school experience is enrolled in a minimum of one heterogeneously grouped core course (English/language
arts, social studies, math, science, or world languages).
3. There is a formal, ongoing program through which each student has an adult in the school, in addition to the
school counselor, who knows the student well and assists the student in achieving the school’s 21 st century
learning expectations.
4. In order to improve student learning through professional development, the principal and professional staff:
engage in professional discourse for reflection, inquiry, and analysis of teaching and learning
use resources outside of the school to maintain currency with best practices
dedicate formal time to implement professional development
apply the skills, practices, and ideas gained in order to improve curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
5. School leaders regularly use research-based evaluation and supervision processes that focus on improved student
learning.
6. The organization of time supports research-based instruction, professional collaboration among teachers, and
the learning needs of all students.
7. Student load and class size enable teachers to meet the learning needs of individual students.
8. The principal, working with other building leaders, provides instructional leadership that is rooted in the
school’s core values, beliefs, and learning expectations.
9. Teachers, students, and parents are involved in meaningful and defined roles in decision-making that promote
responsibility and ownership.
10. Teachers exercise initiative and leadership essential to the improvement of the school and to increase students’
engagement in learning.
11. The school board, superintendent, and principal are collaborative, reflective, and constructive in achieving the
school’s 21 st century learning expectations.
12. The school board and superintendent provide the principal with sufficient decision-making authority to
lead the school.
Page 56 of 89

Support of Teaching and Learning Standards
School Culture and Leadership
CONCLUSIONS
The school community consciously and continuously builds a safe, positive, respectful, and
supportive culture that fosters student responsibility for learning and results in shared ownership,
pride, and high expectations. The strength of the positive culture at University Park Campus School is
evident throughout the school community and all its constituencies. The Student and Parent Handbook
contains the Mission and Vision of the school and communicates high expectations for all students to
ensure that all students are college ready. These expectations permeate the curriculum, with all courses
in the high school being honors level and with all students having the opportunity to take AP level
courses beginning in their freshman year. The Endicott survey reports that 92.5 percent of surveyed
students feel safe within the school and 89.2 percent report that they are proud of their school; however,
only 61.0 percent of students report that they respect each other. Also, 100 percent of the school staff
members report feeling safe and 96.7 percent of surveyed parents report that the school provides a
positive, respectful, and supportive school culture. Although the handbook does not contain specific
discipline codes or expectations, there are general behavioral expectations throughout the document that
are based on mutual respect. The school reports in its 2011-2012 School Accountability Plan that office
referrals and discipline in the middle school are areas of concern; consequently, an Action Plan was
created for this area. Observations confirm minor discipline issues, mainly in the form of disruptive but
not dangerous behaviors, not only in the middle school classrooms but also in some high school
classrooms. The Gateway projects that students complete in grades 8, 10, and 12, and their infusion into
the curriculum are strong examples of students sharing ownership in their learning. The school works to
build a culture of academic responsibility through its use of a core student-centered instructional
framework. The school undertakes formal programs and initiatives that demonstrate a sense of pride and
Page 57 of 89

ownership within the school such as Earth Day, and informal programs such as older students providing
guidance and mentorship to younger students. Because the school community builds a safe, positive,
respectful and supportive culture that fosters student responsibility and high expectations, students have
focused learning opportunities that support student achievement and overall academic growth. (selfstudy,
Endicott survey, teachers, students)
The school is equitable, inclusive, and fosters heterogeneity with all students in all grades taking
heterogeneously grouped core courses. As indicated in the Mission and expressed by interviewed
faculty and parents, all students pursue an academic program consisting entirely of heterogeneously
grouped inquiry-based honors level courses. All students in grades 9 through 12 are additionally eligible
to take Advanced Placement courses. Consequently, with the small school and class sizes, the ongoing
advisory program that emphasizes interactions between students of all grades 7 through 12, and the
pervasive culture of inclusion, students know each other across grade levels and social groups, which
fosters student commitment to a shared culture. Because University Park Campus School requires
students to take heterogeneously grouped courses, all students experience greater equitability and
inclusion, improving student engagement, buy-in and performance. (self-study, parents, teachers,
students, school leadership, classroom observations)
The school has a formal, ongoing advisory program through which each student has an adult in
the school who knows the students. The structure and overall climate of the school fosters informal
interactions and relationships between the staff and students on a daily basis. Under the formal advisory
program, each staff member is assigned a group of ten to twelve students, approximately two from each
grade level (7 through 12). The advisory groups meet weekly for thirty minutes. Each student stays with
the same advisor year to year through graduation, thereby solidifying the connection and providing
stability with the same staff member. Additionally, the presence of the Wraparound coordinator and
Page 58 of 89

teacher initiatives such as the Lunch Bunch and the Support Staff Lunch Bunch provide at-risk students
with additional points of contact and assistance. According to the Endicott survey, students and staff
know each other well, with 85.1 percent of students reporting that the school provides them with an
adult in the school (beyond the guidance counselor) with whom they meet regularly and who knows
them well. Also, 100 percent of the staff agrees that they actively participate as an advisor/mentor in a
formal advisory program, and 91.7 percent of surveyed parents agree that their students are known well
by the staff at the school. Currently, there is no formal advisory curriculum. While the self-study reports
that the “advisory group engages in discussions revolving around academic and social goal setting, some
self-reflection, and gives the older students the opportunity to set forth positive examples of behavior,
both academic and social, to the younger members in the group,” teachers and students report that it
should be a more formalized curriculum-based program. In addition to interviews, the self-study and the
“Two Year Plan” target this as area as needing improvement. Because each student has an adult in the
school, in addition to the school counselor, who knows the student well, the students have a higher
chance of academic success and the school has a greater opportunity to provide the needed support for
students to achieve the school’s expectations and core values. (self-study, Endicott survey, teachers,
parents, students, observations)
In order to improve student learning through professional development, the principal and
professional staff frequently engage in professional discourse for reflection, inquiry, and analysis
of teaching and learning; use resources outside of the school to maintain currency with best
practices; and apply the skills, practices, and ideas gained in order to improve curriculum,
instruction, and assessment; however, more formal time can be dedicated to implement
professional development. Survey results show 100 percent of teachers use professional development
to acquire and implement skills to improve instruction and assessment. Staff members frequently cite the
value of Wednesday meetings that focus on challenges, general managerial issues, and instructional
Page 59 of 89

practices such as the new focus on numeracy. Teachers are encouraged to contribute focusing topics, and
articles are sometimes distributed in advance for full-staff consideration. However, teachers and the
instructional coach report that the time during Wednesday meetings is often used to extended
discussions of student issues. Teachers emphasize their pride with their shared vision and with their
ability to affect change within the school. Additionally within the school and as one indicator of
embedded professional development, weekly Friday Focus emails from the instructional coach identify
and illustrate best practices and reiterate questions, concerns, and comments that arise naturally between
colleagues and within classrooms. Outside the school, teachers seek professional development
individually, including conferences and online coursework, some of which is supported by WPS and
Clark University. Many teachers visit other successful schools to gain perspective and implement best
practices. Teachers take relevant courses at Clark University, although many instructors have completed
all current offerings and are eager for new courses. Few instructors use WPS-based professional
development opportunities other than those that are required. Because the principal and professional
staff members actively use internal and external opportunities for professional development and engage
in a culture of reflection, inquiry, and analysis, all students are offered a challenging research-based
program of studies that increases student achievement. (Endicott survey, self-study, teachers, school
leadership, panel presentation, district leadership)
School leaders regularly use research-based evaluation and supervision processes that focus on
improved student learning. The Worcester Public School System is in the process of implementing a
recently developed, research-based Teacher Evaluation Document that employs best practices and
focuses on improving student learning. The document requires SMARTe goals, teacher self-assessment,
action steps, and reflection. The district’s new plan requires staff to use current and timely data to target
specific areas of concern. The school continues to use examination of data to inform decisions; for
example, it targets middle school students, particularly those designated in special education with non-
Page 60 of 89

writing skill development, in preparation for the Grade 10 ELA MCAS. Similarly, the school uses
Accuplacer and MCAS data to implement numeracy efforts. While the district plan does not yet have a
formal observation form, the school’s principal and staff have created a functional observation form for
the school. In addition to the formalized plans in development, teachers and students report that the
principal is often in classrooms informally and is visible in the hallways. The school has an instructional
coach who provides informal feedback to the teachers in areas of instruction. In addition to individual
feedback, the coach writes Friday Focus emails geared toward embedded professional development
related to instruction and improving student learning. Teachers report finding these weekly emails
useful. While there has been a focus on instructional rounds in conjunction with Jobs For the Future
(JFF) and the MAT program at Clark University, the school does not have a formal and succinct rounds
process for teachers within UPCS. Because University Park Campus School uses a research-based
evaluation and supervision process, complemented by a comprehensive rounds system that focuses on
student learning, teachers continue to improve their practices leading to growth in student academic
achievement. (self-study, teachers, school leadership, panel presentation, principal, district leadership)
The organization of time supports research-based instruction, professional collaboration among
teachers, and the learning needs of all students. Grades 7 through 10 have a regimented schedule with
specific electives offerings. Juniors and seniors have more flexibility and choice. The schedule on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays is all the same. On those days, students are in core classes
and some regular electives. Wednesdays are different in that juniors are off campus at internships until
10:00 am and seniors are off campus until noon. At the same time, the Clark University masters
students cover all the other classes freeing up teachers for their weekly Wednesday morning faculty
meetings. Schedule modifications and adjustments over recent years demonstrate continuous reflection
and a willingness to organize the schedule to optimize instruction, enable professional collaboration,
particularly at Wednesday morning meetings, and target the academic, civic, and social needs of all
Page 61 of 89

students. Examples include the addition of a ninth grade summer academy, the extension of the seventh
and eighth grade day, the redesign of the junior and senior schedule to develop college-ready skills, the
integration of MAT instructors as essential personnel, and the creation of Passion Thursdays to provide
nonacademic interaction between students and staff. Significant grant funding is used to provide these
research-based extensions to the traditional academic program, and the principal has the autonomy to
seek funding and to organize time so as to optimize collaboration and instruction to best meet the needs
of all students. Because time has been organized to facilitate professional collaboration and to increase
flexibility of programs and instruction, staff members have gained opportunities to examine and to
implement research-based instruction while all students are offered increased opportunities to engage in
nonacademic and academically supportive enrichment. (self-study, teachers, students, panel
presentation, school leadership, district leadership)
Student load and class size enable teachers to meet the learning needs of individual students. The
school maintains a teacher load of approximately 80 students resulting in a 15.3 to 1 student-to-teacher
ratio. Class sizes range from fewer than ten students in morning AP courses, to nearly thirty students for
some grade-level core courses. Endicott survey findings indicate 94.4 percent of staff and 94.8 percent
of surveyed parents agree that student load and class size allow teachers to meet the needs of individual
students. Across grade cohorts, 85.7 percent of students agree that class sizes are reasonable. Students
additionally indicate that class sizes are appropriate to their learning needs. The acceptable student load
and class sizes enable teachers to effectively assess and to meet the specific and the individual needs of
all students. (self-study, Endicott survey, teachers, students)
The principal, working with other building leaders, provides instructional leadership that is
rooted in the school’s core values, beliefs, and learning expectations. The principal, who was hired
from within for the current school year, is perceived by veteran staff and new hires as having grown up
Page 62 of 89

in and being fully immersed in the school’s core values, beliefs, and learning expectations. Long held by
his colleagues to be a leading instructor, his recent transition to principal is viewed by co-workers as
both logical and useful to the maintenance of the school culture. The weekly Wednesday faculty meeting
serves as the regular mechanism by which the principal leads, disseminates information, facilitates other
teachers’ collaboration and leadership, and maintains the continuity of reflection and practice. As
instructional leader, the principal has focused intensively on at-risk students through targeted interaction.
Because the principal serves to both direct and elicit vision, facilitating staff engagement that is
reflective, forward-looking, and rooted in shared values, beliefs, and learning expectations, the school
culture has been both affirmed and elevated. (self-study, teachers, parents, school support staff, school
leadership)
The teachers, some students and some parents are involved in decision-making that promotes
responsibility and ownership. The principal respects and encourages the contributions of all staff
members, and the majority of decisions involve consensus building that develops a shared leadership
that is committed and invested. The Endicott survey reports that 94.4 percent of staff members believe
parents and students play a meaningful role in the decision-making process. Although 64.4 percent of
surveyed students feel they have input in important decisions, this lower school-wide percentage relates
primarily to the perception of middle school students. Student involvement is a foundation of the school
and is touted as an area of strength. As cited in the self-study, the school’s student council is the primary
venue for discussing proposed changes with students. Interviewed students report that the principal
maintains an open door policy and is always available. Alumni complete surveys regularly, with past
input leading to a school-wide focus on college readiness and computer literacy. Students are also
represented at the district level through the Superintendent’s Advisory Council, managed by the Alumni
Coordinator. The staff reports that school-wide decisions are not made unless the staff has first agreed,
and then the administration works to build consensus. Through email, informal conversations,
Page 63 of 89

professional development days, and weekly Wednesday faculty meetings, each staff member has a voice
in decision-making. Such collaborative decision-making has led to such actions as the institution of the
August Academy for ninth grade transition, extended time blocks for the middle school, and the
plagiarism awareness week. Overall, teacher attendance is over 95 percent, well above the district
average. The Parent Advisory Council engages regularly with school and district leadership,
contributing to the decision-making dialogue and working to involve more parents. Parents affirm the
self-study finding that parents are advised before any major changes are made. As of 2011, the school is
designated as an Innovation School, allowing parents and students to take a more active role in the
management of the school, exemplified by their involvement in hiring the new principal and teachers.
Because all stakeholders are involved in meaningful decision-making, responsibility and ownership of
student achievements has been strengthened. (self-study, Endicott survey, teachers, parents, students,
school leadership, panel presentation)
Teachers exercise initiative and leadership essential to the improvement of the school and to
increase students’ engagement in learning. Teachers strongly confirm a culture that values and
encourages their ability to contribute to the continuing conversation on practice by identifying
opportunities and concerns. Teachers proudly relate personal success in proposing new initiatives. Many
vocalize implicit trust for and expectation of the same from their colleagues. To further facilitate teacher
exchange, the instructional coach’s weekly Friday Focus email culls questions and encapsulates
comments and discussions. Initiatives such as the ninth grade summer academy and the extended
seventh and eighth grade day are teacher-led responses to student concerns and team examination of
school data. In addition, seventh grade teachers embed the Common Instruction Framework into their
instructional strategies to introduce incoming students to the school's culture and expectations. Such
efforts have proven essential to the improvement of the school, extending opportunities for all incoming
students to acclimate to the school culture and engage more successfully in learning. One ongoing
Page 64 of 89

teacher initiative is the continual curriculum mapping that each department has undertaken for the past
few years, a response to the perceived need to align the curriculum both vertically within subject matter
and horizontally across the grade levels. Because teachers exercise initiative and have the trust and
authority to lead, the school continuously improves and students' engagement in learning increases.
(self-study, teachers, school support staff, panel presentation)
The school board, superintendent, and principal are collaborative, reflective, and constructive in
achieving the school’s 21 st century learning expectations. The school has recently been designated as
an Innovation School, providing the school with flexibility and autonomy in many areas such as day-today
management, hiring, some aspects of budgeting, and most importantly, instructional practice. The
school committee supports this designation. The principal and central office personnel meet on a regular
basis to discuss issues such as budgeting and professional development. While there is collaboration
between and among the principal, the school committee, and the superintendent, there is little
curriculum, assessment, and instructional collaboration across the district with other area high schools.
Each year the school develops an Accountability Plan, which targets areas for improvement to assist
students with achieving the school’s 21 st century learning expectations. The principal, working in
collaboration with the other parties in the school community, was given the flexibility to hire a full-time
school adjustment counselor to respond to this perceived need. Because all components of district and
building leadership are working together toward achieving learning expectations, student achievement
is enhanced. (self-study, Accountability Plan, principal, teachers, parents)
The school board and superintendent provide the principal with broad autonomy in decisionmaking
authority to lead the school. This indicator was not reviewed in the self-study. Teachers and
parents indicate the superintendent and school committee are mostly absent from school level decisionmaking.
The founding principal and subsequent principals are credited with establishing school
Page 65 of 89

autonomy, which historically has gone unchallenged because of the school’s high performance within
the district. Able to reflect upon practice, agree upon vision, and initiate change because of the
autonomy, the school staff has managed time, identified areas for growth, and increased nontraditional
offerings including the extended middle school day, numeracy instruction for middle school students,
and Passion Thursdays, among other initiatives. With the recent proposal and acceptance of UPCS as an
Innovation School, the school has “bounded autonomy,” allowing it to pursue its daily practice and
maintain its culture provided it follows Massachusetts and WPS Frameworks and guiding principles.
Because the school committee and superintendent have trusted and invested in the principal’s decisionmaking
autonomy, the principal has had the authority to make the decisions necessary to positively
impact student achievement. (Endicott survey, school committee, teachers, parents, teachers, school
leadership)
Commendations
1. The Gateway projects that are emblematic of student pride in and responsibility for their learning
2. The belief by students and teachers that their school is a safe space in which mistakes are
allowed and purposeful academic struggle is encouraged as a way for students to acquire
knowledge more deeply
3. The heterogeneity of all core courses in grades 7 through 12
4. The ability of all students to challenge themselves by taking AP courses beginning in their
freshman year
5. The advisory program which strengthens the connection between students and teachers
6. The collaborative relationship with Clark University which informs conversations and focuses
initiatives on preparing students for college
7. The generous amount of scheduled time to implement professional development, specifically the
weekly two-hour Wednesday faculty meetings
Page 66 of 89

8. The use of Friday Focus emails to focus attention on current and best practices
9. The beginning of a comprehensive school and district instructional rounds program
10. The organization of time to support instruction
11. The extended day opportunities to support academics, meet student needs, and provide
alternative and enriching experiences
12. The reasonable student load that enables teachers to assess and to meet the needs of individual
students
13. The staff’s high esteem held for the principal
14. The commitment to the consensus model of decision-making
15. The students' active role in making decisions, promoting student responsibility for and ownership
of the school
16. The culture that fosters staff initiative
17. The designation as an Innovation School enabling school flexibility and autonomy
18. The school committee and superintendent’s provision of autonomy to the school’s principal,
allowing the school to address areas of opportunity
Recommendations
1. Develop a specific Discipline Code related to school and classroom behavior to complement the
Honor Code that is tied to the school’s mission and core values
2. Develop a curriculum for advisory that is aligned with the school’s 21 st century learning
expectations and core values
3. Restructure the Wednesday meetings to ensure and protect time for job-embedded coaching on
best instructional practices
4. Promote responsibility and ownership opportunities for middle school students
Page 67 of 89

5. Increase cross-school interaction to facilitate curriculum, assessment, and instructional
collaboration
Page 68 of 89

6 School Resources for Learning
Support Standard
Student learning and well-being are dependent upon adequate and appropriate support. The school is responsible for
providing an effective range of coordinated programs and services. These resources enhance and improve student learning
and well-being and support the school's core values and beliefs. Student support services enable each student to achieve the
school's 21 st century learning expectations.
The school has timely, coordinated, and directive intervention strategies for all students, including identified and
at-risk students, that support each student’s achievement of the school’s 21 st century learning
expectations.
The school provides information to families, especially to those most in need, about available student support
services.
Support services staff use technology to deliver an effective range of coordinated services for each student.
School counseling services have an adequate number of certified/licensed personnel and support staff who:
deliver a written, developmental program
meet regularly with students to provide personal, academic, career, and college counseling
engage in individual and group meetings with all students
deliver collaborative outreach and referral to community and area mental health agencies and
social service providers
use ongoing, relevant assessment data, including feedback from the school community, to
improve services and ensure each student achieves the school’s 21 st century learning expectations.
The school's health services have an adequate number of certified/licensed personnel and support staff who:
provide preventative health services and direct intervention services
use an appropriate referral process
conduct ongoing student health assessments
use ongoing, relevant assessment data, including feedback from the school community, to improve
services and ensure each student achieves the school’s 21 st century learning expectations.
Library/media services are integrated into curriculum and instructional practices and have an adequate number
of certified/licensed personnel and support staff who:
are actively engaged in the implementation of the school's curriculum
provide a wide range of materials, technologies, and other information services in support of the
school's curriculum
ensure that the facility is available and staffed for students and teachers before, during, and after
school
are responsive to students' interests and needs in order to support independent learning
conduct ongoing assessment using relevant data, including feedback from the school community, to
improve services and ensure each student achieves the school’s 21 st century learning expectations.
Support services for identified students, including special education, Section 504 of the ADA, and English
language learners, have an adequate number of certified/licensed personnel and support staff who:
collaborate with all teachers, counselors, targeted services, and other support staff in order to
achieve the school's 21 st century learning expectations
provide inclusive learning opportunities for all students
perform ongoing assessment using relevant data, including feedback from the school community,
to improve services and ensure each student achieves the school’s 21 st century learning expectations.
Page 69 of 89

School Resources for Learning
CONCLUSIONS
University Park Campus School provides timely, coordinated, and directive intervention strategies
for all students, including identified and at-risk students that support each student’s achievement
of the school’s 21 st century learning expectations. Regular interventions throughout a student’s
experience, when needed, are common. Teachers meet for two hours each Wednesday morning, and
substantial meeting time is used to discuss students who may be at-risk and appear not to be making
adequate progress. The principal meets with a Friday “lunch bunch” of support services personnel to
discuss needs brought forth during the Wednesday meeting. The advisory program enhances the
opportunity for teachers to encourage self-assessment and to discuss possible issues with individual
students. Because student cohort groups share the same five teachers, the teachers are able to assess and
discuss students' individual needs and can implement interventions in a timely manner. The student
support team, including the guidance counselor, adjustment counselor, Wraparound coordinator, and
school psychologist, all work with subject teachers and the school’s special education teacher to plan
interventions and to discuss new approaches for students. All staff members are available to students
before and after school. The after-school Homework Center for middle school students provides extra
support for them and is also open to high school students who choose to attend. With the commitment of
all staff members to the support for each student in achieving the 21 st century learning expectations, the
identification and remediation of at-risk students takes place in a positive, timely fashion. (self-study,
teachers, students, parents)
The school makes every attempt to provide information to families, especially to those most in
need, about available student support services. The Endicott survey reflects a discrepancy between
staff and parents. The survey indicates 72 percent of staff strongly agrees and 23 percent agrees that the
school provides information about support services to families, while 36 percent of parents strongly
Page 70 of 89

agrees and 50 percent agrees with that statement. E-mails and flyers in different languages are sent to
inform parents of services and events at the school and within the community. The Wraparound
coordinator and the guidance and support services staff have complete knowledge of the resources and
services available in the community and make it a point to connect families with those resources. Great
effort is made by all specialists and teachers to make sure parents are advised about what is going on in
the school and the community. In addition to formal notification, teachers stay in close contact with
parents through emails and phone calls. Although they are limited, interpretation services are in place to
assist parents who have language challenges. Support services staff is available to provide updated
information on scores and remediation assistance when teachers meet with parents. Because the school
makes a concerted effort to ensure that parents are well-informed in a variety of ways concerning all
aspects of the school, a strong home-school partnership is fostered. (parents, teachers, self-study,
Endicott survey)
The support services staff use technology to deliver an adequate range of coordinated services for
each student. The guidance and school adjustment counselor have access to the district student
information system, SAGE, which allows them to track, coordinate, and document all aspects of a
student’s educational needs. The special education teacher provides English language learners and
special education students with the Read Naturally program to promote fluency development. The
guidance counselors and the Wraparound coordinator use Naviance for senior career exploration.
Support staff uses the technology available to them to coordinate services, therefore assisting students
in meeting the school’s 21 st century learning expectations. (self-study, support staff, administrator)
School counseling services have an adequate number of certified/licensed personnel who meet
regularly with students, both individually and in groups, to provide personal, academic, career,
and college counseling, to deliver collaborative outreach and referral to community and area
Page 71 of 89

mental health agencies and social service providers, and to use ongoing, relevant assessment data;
however, there is no written developmental guidance curriculum for any grade other than twelfth.
The counselor, Wraparound coordinator, and adjustment counselor meet regularly with students both
individually and in groups. The small size of the school and the organization of students in cohort
groups enable teachers at UPCS to know their students very well as individuals. Teachers are often the
first to notice newly surfacing needs in their students. The recently implemented Naviance program
enhances the ability of the guidance counselor to assist students with college planning. Naviance will be
further integrated into grades 9-11 as training, budget, and time permit. Assessment data from
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and MAST assist the counselor and special education teacher to
help them develop statistics for students and for the school to determine how students are performing in
language, reading and mathematics, to identify skills they need to work on, and to provide appropriate
differentiation. A written guidance curriculum and a guidance handbook is provided by Worcester
Public School District, however UCPS does not follow the curriculum as written. The teachers play a
prominent role in the guidance and college planning process. . The cohesive relationship among the
various support services enhances opportunities for students to succeed in achieving the school’s 21 st
century expectations. (self-study, staff meetings and interviews, curriculum documents)
The School Health Service does have an adequate number of certified/licensed personnel or
support staff, and does make use of local resources, to provide necessary health services for the
school. UPCS employs a part-time nurse who works from 8:30am to 12pm.. When the nurse is not in
the school, the referral process sends students to Goddard Elementary School's Clinic directly across the
street from the UPCS. An appropriate referral system is in place. Students referred to the nurse sign
in, and when possible, she sets up appointments to accommodate student schedules. The nurse conducts
ongoing vision, hearing, and scoliosis screenings as mandated. The health office is very small and lacks
privacy. The nurse and special education teacher open their doors to community mental health
Page 72 of 89

screenings, social services providers, and any program that provides multilingual health assistance to
accommodate the parents in the neighborhood as well. The nurse is not integrated into the assessment
system of 21 st century learning expectations. The lack of confidential space adequate to accommodate ill
students impedes the delivery of appropriate health services. (self-study, facility tour, support staff
meetings, administrator)
Library Media Services are not integrated into the curriculum or instructional practice because
there is no certified/licensed library media specialist available to the school. UPCS does not have a
library in their building, but does have a partnership agreement with Clark University's Goddard Library
located several blocks from the school. According to the Endicott survey, students and staff recognize
the lack of access to a library or certified library/media specialist. On the other hand, over half of
responding parents agree or strongly agree that library personnel, services and materials are adequate.
There is very little evidence of regular implementation or curricular integration of library skills and
research other than two large research projects and a few teacher-led field trips to Clark University's
Goddard Library. The Clark University Reference Librarian Team endeavors to work with the school’s
teachers on assignments for grades 10-12. The primary users of Goddard Library are students registered
for courses at Clark University. All UPCS students can access Goddard Library on their own, but only
those enrolled in Clark University courses can check out books. Because all UPCS teachers are alumni
of Clark University, they are allowed to borrow materials for their students. However, the materials
available from a university library are not grade-level appropriate for consumption by all high school
students , especially for seventh and eighth graders. Ninth graders do go to the Clark Library for an
orientation about how to use the resources there. Because the school does not have certified
library/media support staff and because library/media services are not integrated into the curriculum or
instructional practices, students' opportunities to practice and meet the 21 st century learning
expectations are severely limited. (Endicott survey, self-study, students, teachers, parents, administrator)
Page 73 of 89

Support Services for identified students, including special education, section 504 of the ADA and
English language learners, have an adequate number of certified personnel and support staff to
meet the needs of all learners at University Park Campus School. The twenty-eight identified
special education students receive mostly “push in” and some “pull out” services from a full-time
special education teacher. Her office is in the elementary school across the street; students must leave
the UPCS building to access their IEP-mandated services. The special education teacher collaborates
with the teaching staff to ensure a smooth transition for students. The MAP is used two times a year to
determine student progress in reading, language arts, and math. This data is used to plan appropriate
remediation. Most UPCS teachers are certified in Sheltered English Immersion, allowing English
language learners to receive appropriate services within the classroom. The District provides a tutor
when any Level 1 or 2 English language learners are enrolled in the school. Two Level 2 English
language learners were enrolled in 2011-12 and both advanced to Level 3 for 2012-13. Students who
reach their junior year in high school are encouraged to participate in various foundations and service
agencies associated with Clark University and with community and neighborhood coalitions. This
mentorship helps students who are deficient in skills prepare for college. When the special educator's
office is located in the same building as the students being served, the opportunities increase for all
students to get support while practicing 21 st century learning expectations. (self-study, support services,
teachers)
Commendations
1. The coordinated and timely efforts of teachers and support services to address the needs of
identified and at-risk students
2. The significant efforts made by the office, support services, and teaching staff to provide
information to families
Page 74 of 89

3. The coordination among the support services staff and teachers
4. The effort of Worcester Public Schools to ensure that teachers are trained to provide appropriate
services for English language learners
Recommendations
1. Provide students with confidential access to nursing services
2. Provide library/media services and materials by a certified school library media specialist to
ensure integration of library and research skills within the curriculum and instruction
3. Provide professional development for teachers on the integration of library skills within
curriculum and instruction
4. Provide mandated special education services within the UPCS building
Page 75 of 89

7 Community Resources for Learning
Support Standard
The achievement of the school’s 21 st century learning expectations requires active community, governing board,
and parent advocacy. Through dependable and adequate funding, the community provides the personnel,
resources, and facilities to support the delivery of curriculum, instruction, programs, and services.
1. The community and the district's governing body provide dependable funding for:
a wide range of school programs and services
sufficient professional and support staff
ongoing professional development and curriculum revision
a full range of technology support
sufficient equipment
sufficient instructional materials and supplies.
2. The school develops, plans, and funds programs:
to ensure the maintenance and repair of the building and school plant
to properly maintain, catalogue, and replace equipment
to keep the school clean on a daily basis.
3. The community funds and the school implements a long-range plan that addresses:
programs and services
enrollment changes and staffing needs
facility needs
technology
capital improvements.
4. Faculty and building administrators are actively involved in the development and implementation
of the budget.
5. The school site and plant support the delivery of high quality school programs and services.
6. The school maintains documentation that the physical plant and facilities meet all applicable federal
and state laws and are in compliance with local fire, health, and safety regulations.
7. All professional staff actively engage parents and families as partners in each student’s education
and reach out specifically to those families who have been less connected with the school.
8. The school develops productive parent, community, business, and higher education partnerships
that support student learning.
Page 76 of 89

Community Resources for Learning
CONCLUSIONS
The district’s governing body is a source of revenue which provides funding for some aspects of
school programs, personnel, services, facilities, equipment, technological support, materials, and
supplies that have an impact on student learning. The school continually relies on outside sources of
funding, such as grants from Jobs For the Future (JFF) and Clark University. During the 2012-2013
school year, the school program supplemented district resources with approximately $175,000.00 in
grant funding. Grants pay for various staff positions, Advanced Placement course offerings, the summer
academy, college course tuition for UPCS students, and various programs that extend the school day and
provide academic interventions. Grant funded programs that provide students with opportunities and
interventions to meet the school’s 21 st century expectations are only available for the duration of the
grants. They are not consistently funded by the governing body, Worcester Public Schools. For the
2012-2013 school year, the school is allocated $68 per student for instructional supplies; this includes
copier contracts, printer cartridges, toner, and other general supplies. Out of that $68 per pupil
expenditure, $10 per pupil is frozen by the District Office in anticipation of budget shortfalls. So the
2012-2013 per pupil allocation total for instructional supplies was $16,592.00; subtracting the frozen
amount from the total, the school is operating on $14,152.00 for instructional supplies for the year based
on enrollment of 244 students. A portion of this total allotment was used for clerical supplies for the
NEASC visiting team. The Endicott survey points out that 0 percent of the staff reports that the
community and the district provide dependable funding levels for programming, instructional materials,
and technology; however, 69.5 percent of parents feels that the community appropriately funds the
school, and 52.3 percent of students indicates that the school offers a wide-range of programs and
services. While grant funding does supplement programming, the district now provides the additional
funding, through a district-wide initiative, for the instructional coach and the Wraparound coordinator.
Page 77 of 89

The insufficient level of funding for technology, including both the computer lab and the general
infrastructure and its overall maintenance, limits students’ ability to meet the school’s 21 st century
learning expectations. Both students and staff report that requests for technology repairs must go through
several layers of bureaucracy before a repair can be made. Currently there are no technology specialists
to work with teachers to integrate technology into their instruction. The Endicott survey indicates
that16.7 percent of the staff reports that the needed repairs are completed in a timely manner, and 0
percent states that the district provides adequate funding for technology and support. The school offers
several professional development opportunities, both in-house and district-wide. While the majority of
these opportunities are related to the JFF and Clark University, staff members do not typically take
advantage of district-wide professional development on a regular basis. With the addition of the
instructional coach, the district-wide professional development model has shifted to a more embedded
building-level professional development structure. District-level funding for professional development
is aligned to the schools’ Accountability Plans and district initiatives, such as Focus on Results. The one
special educator, who's office is located in the elementary school across the street, serves as a resource to
teachers, offers a traditional pull-out program for the 28 identified special education students, provides
reading remediation, and implements and monitors Individual Education Plans (IEPs.) The staffing
levels in the areas of custodians, office personnel and food service are sufficient and contribute to the
orderly environment. The school committee states that they work hard to equitably distribute limited
funds throughout all of the schools. When the district is able to adequately provide a source of revenue
to appropriately fund educational programs, students will have a wide variety of areas through which
they will be able to meet the 21st century learning expectations.
(Endicott survey, teachers, students,
parents, school committee, district budget)
The school does not develop, plan, or fund programs to ensure the maintenance of the building
and school plant or to properly maintain, catalogue, and replace equipment, but does provide a
Page 78 of 89

clean environment. The school is housed in a 130-year-old building, and there are many areas in which
the limitations of the physical plant and the lack of a comprehensive plan for maintenance and
replacement of equipment limits students’ ability to meet the 21 st century learning expectations. The
district reports that there is no five-year plan to ensure the maintenance and repair of the building and
school plant, nor is there an equipment purchase plan. In response to the Zero-Based budget method,
specific requests for replacement or new equipment are conveyed by the building administration to the
central administration. Fifty-six percent of students report that equipment in the classrooms is in good
condition. Classroom observations show furniture is functional but often inappropriately sized for the
room. The one custodial staff member at UPCS does not maintain records of his work but is responsible
for cleaning the building on a daily basis. In addition, 55.6% of the staff, 62.9 percent of the students,
and 93.2 percent of the parents report that the school is clean and well maintained. While smaller issues
are dealt with at the building level, larger building and financial issues are the responsibility of the
central administration. Long-range plans for larger projects that consistently deal with significant
facility needs are non-existent. The custodian, students and staff take pride in their efforts to provide a
safe and clean environment for students and all faculty members, as evidenced by the lack of graffiti
throughout the school and many observations of students picking up papers off the floor. When a
formalized and structured plan is in place for maintenance, capital improvements and equipment
purchases, the building will more consistently support students’ achievement of the school’s 21st century
learning expectations. (self-study, observations, teachers, administration, students, Endicott survey)
The community does not fund and the school does not implement a long-range plan to address
programs and services, enrollment changes and staffing needs, facility needs, technology or capital
improvements. The Endicott survey reports no staff members strongly agree and only 12 percent
agrees that the school has a long-range plan to address facilities, future programs, services, staffing
levels, and capital improvements. The self-study acknowledges that, “the horizon for planning for the
Page 79 of 89

acquisition and allocation of funds for programs is not long-range,” and suggests that long-range
planning is a central office function. The Innovation School Plan proposal does mention funding and
budgeting, but only in terms of continuing current programs and services, not in terms of long-range
planning. Planning at University Park Campus School is currently driven by the School Accountability
Plan process, which is not a long-range planning process. Programs and services are adjusted year-toyear
based on the Accountability Plan. The building is near, or even at, capacity for enrollment, and
staffing levels are generally appropriate to support current programs and services. There is no evidence
of future planning that will significantly adjust enrollment or staffing levels. While the need is
recognized, there is no long-range plan for replacement of current or investment in future technology at
the school. Only 50 percent of students agrees or strongly agrees that the school has a sufficient number
of computers for student use. District-wide capital improvement plans are now exclusively focused on
energy savings, specifically windows and boilers, in order to leverage funds from a federal grant
program currently available. All other capital improvements are on hold. The lack of long-range
planning restricts the schools' ability to ensure that all students' opportunities to practice and achieve
21 st century learning expectations will continue and expand in the future. (Endicott survey, self-study,
Innovation School Plan proposal, teachers, principal, central office administrators)
Faculty and building administrators are limited in their role in the development and
implementation of the budget. District administrators provide an annual budget for each of the district
schools. The building administrator, along with the faculty, ensures that any instructional needs are
addressed within the constraints of this budget. The building principal has the autonomy to shift
resources to address unanticipated needs. As an example, the adjustment counselor’s position at the
school was increased from part-time to full-time in 2012-13. According to the Endicott survey, only 17
percent of the staff at University Park Campus School agrees or strongly agrees that they have input in
the development of the school’s budget. Staff input is given when it comes to the design of the school’s
Page 80 of 89

udget, but ultimately budget decisions are handled at the district’s central administration office. When
every member of the school community is involved in the development and implementation of the
school’s budget, resources will be more optimally deployed to prepare students to achieve the 21st
century learning expectations. (self-study, school leadership team, central office administrators,
teachers)
While the school’s proximity to Clark University and other neighborhood resources provides
significant support for the delivery of UPCS’s early college program, the physical plant has a
significantly negative impact on the school’s ability to deliver high quality school programs and
services. The school’s location, about a quarter mile from Clark University, allows UPCS students to
access the academic resources of Clark, both as enrolled students in introductory college classes and as
users of the library, and physical education facilities. UPCS students can also access some classes at
their sister school, Claremont Academy, which is 0.8 of a mile from the school. This mitigates to some
degree the significant limitations of space and available facilities that impede the delivery of the college
preparatory curriculum that is at the heart of UPCS’s core values and expectations. The one high school
science lab lacks a fume hood, making the delivery of an honors level chemistry curriculum virtually
impossible. The science lab also lacks an eye wash station and chemical shower, although a makeshift
hose system is available in one of the sinks. The school has no library media center; although juniors
and seniors taking classes at Clark can access Clark library materials, underclassmen's access to a library
is limited. The cafeteria is extremely small and dark, and the food preparation area lacks an exhaust
hood and fire suppression system. Because of the small size of the cafeteria, half of the students must eat
lunch in classrooms. There is no performing arts space, gymnasium, or athletic fields. Physical
education classes walk to the gym at Clark University, but only when weather permits. Because no room
is available for special education services, the special education teacher is housed at the elementary
school across the street. Special education students must leave the UPCS building and cross the street to
Page 81 of 89

access their IEP-mandated services. The one computer lab is within a classroom that is otherwise
occupied by a mathematics teacher; if other teachers wish to access the computer lab, the math teacher
must switch classrooms with those teachers. There are twelve classrooms in the building and in most
instances, classrooms are shared by two or more teachers. Office space is extremely limited. The
principal has a tiny office off the main foyer. Other offices are shared by two or more individuals, many
of whom deal with confidential student issues. The guidance counselor and Wraparound Coordinator
share a small office with no reception area and very limited privacy. The nurse’s office consists of one
small room that also contains a copy machine used by many teachers. There are no conference rooms;
any meeting involving more than a few people must be held in the teacher workroom. The teacher
workspace is small, dark, and immediately adjacent to the cafeteria and the only girls’ bathroom. Two
student bathrooms serve the entire school; these are in the basement adjacent to the cafeteria. The
student bathrooms do not have sinks. Students must exit the bathrooms to wash their hands at sinks in
the cafeteria proper. A bathroom in the nurse’s office is available for students with medical needs and for
faculty. Another single lavatory on the third floor is also available for faculty use. Outdoor space is
limited to a parking lot that is adequate in size but is not secure. The school was built in 1885 and was
rehabilitated but not significantly renovated when the school opened in 1997. No plans for renovation
currently exist. Until the significant space limitations are addressed, UPCS will be unable to fully
achieve its mission of graduating students fully prepared for study in college in the 21 st century. (selfstudy,
teachers, facilities tour, classroom observations)
The school does not maintain documentation that the physical plant and facilities meet all
applicable federal and state laws and are in compliance with local fire, health, and safety
regulations; while limited documentation of some laws and regulations exists within the school,
most such documentation is maintained at the district office and was not made available to the
visiting committee. Materials Safety Data Sheets are available in the science lab. A Certificate of
Page 82 of 89

Occupancy for the building is issued on an annual basis and was made available for review. A fire drill
record is maintained and signed by the fire marshal. The building is not compliant with the requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fire alarms sound but do not flash. There is no fire suppression
system in the kitchen. An evacuation plan is posted. The District Chief Financial Officer stated to the
visiting committee that the district has no accountability for OSHA compliance. Other documentation
was not provided. Because the documentation is not available for many of the applicable federal, state,
and local regulations, the safety and security of the University Park Campus School community cannot
be guaranteed. (self-study, district administrators, principal)
All professional staff frequently and actively engage parents and families as partners in each
student’s education and reach out specifically to those families who have been less connected with
the school. Teachers and parents report open lines of communication and a strong partnership. The
Endicott survey reveals that 94.4 percent of parents believe the school actively engages them in their
children’s education. Language is a barrier to communication, but written materials are provided in
several languages and translators attend important meetings. The Connect 5 system ensures that all
families are notified of important parent information sessions. The institution of a 9 th and 10 th grade
parent information night geared toward college awareness helps link parents to the college-bound
mission of the school. More than half the eligible parents attended the most recent session. District
curriculum personnel report that parent involvement at this school is much higher than at other district
schools. Team meetings are frequently held when students are experiencing difficulties, with the
Wednesday morning faculty meeting time providing one avenue for such meetings. The hiring of a
Wraparound coordinator enables the school to more easily link families in crisis with community
agencies. The adjustment counselor and Wraparound coordinator do, in rare instances, visit homes when
parents do not respond to calls from the school. The PTO evolved into the Parent Advisory Council and
is involved in the school’s decision-making process including the interview process for the new principal
Page 83 of 89

and teachers hired in the summer of 2012. They also assist with the translation of materials and
presentations into Spanish and Vietnamese. The strong partnership between families and the school
creates a cohesive, caring culture that supports the teaching and learning process. (parent meeting,
principal, teachers, Standard committee meeting, district administrators, self-study)
The school has developed numerous thriving community, business, and higher education
partnerships that support and extend student learning. The school was founded in 1997 in
partnership with Clark University, and the partnership continues to grow and thrive. The goal is for all
students to take at least one college course before they graduate. Students are afforded some opportunity
to study at the Clark library, to use the Clark athletic fields for physical education, and to present
Gateway exhibitions in Clark venues. A significant commitment by Clark University is its promise that
any UPCS graduate who is accepted through the regular admissions process can enroll and earn a
bachelor's degree tuition-free. The school has developed other college partnerships as well, with some
students taking courses at Worcester State University, Quinsigamond Community College, and the
College of the Holy Cross. All students complete junior and senior internships at local businesses and at
a neighboring elementary school. Strong relationships with several community agencies further support
student learning; among these are the Main South Community Development Council; the Boys’ and
Girls’ Clubs of Worcester; several churches; and the Worcester Police Department. The strong higher
education and community partnerships ensure that UPCS students have various opportunities to
develop the college and career readiness skills needed for success in the future. (Endicott survey,
teacher meetings, self-study)
Commendations
1. The safe and clean environment that supports daily learning
2. The ability of the principal to shift budgeted resources to accommodate perceived needs
Page 84 of 89

3. The use of alternative facilities such as Clark University and Claremont Academy to provide
programs that cannot be accommodated at UPCS
4. The strong partnership between the school and parents
5. The funding for a Wraparound coordinator to ensure that referrals to appropriate community
agencies assist families who are struggling
6. The strong and continuous partnership with Clark University that affords every student the
opportunity to take at least one college-level course
7. The strong link between the school and community agencies
8. The junior and senior internships that link students with the community
Recommendations
1. Fully fund, through the district budget, those programs essential to the core values and beliefs
about learning
2. Provide and support adequate technology to allow students to meet the school’s 21 st century
learning expectations
3. Develop a program for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the building
4. Develop a program for the maintenance, cataloguing, and replacement of equipment
5. Develop and implement a long-range plan to address programs and services, enrollment changes
and staffing needs, facility needs, technology and capital improvements
6. Actively involve faculty and building administrators in the development and implementation of
the budget
7. Provide necessary equipment to bring the science lab to the standard necessary for honors-level
high school science instruction
8. Provide consistent access to library media services for all students
9. Equip the kitchen with appropriate safety equipment
Page 85 of 89

10. Provide private space for counseling, nursing, and other services needing privacy
11. Provide space for special education services within the school building
12. Ensure that physical education instruction can occur appropriately in any weather conditions
13. Maintain documentation of compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations
14. Address non-compliance issues related to ADA accessibility and fire safety
Page 86 of 89

FOLLOW-UP RESPONSIBILITIES
This comprehensive evaluation report reflects the findings of the school's self-study and those of
the visiting committee. It provides a blueprint for the faculty, administration, and other officials to use
to improve the quality of programs and services for the students in University Park Campus School. The
faculty, school board, and superintendent should be apprised by the building administration yearly of
progress made addressing visiting committee recommendations.
Since it is in the best interest of the students that the citizens of the district become aware of the
strengths and limitations of the school and suggested recommendations for improvement, the Committee
requires that the evaluation report be made public in accordance with the Committee's Policy on
Distribution, Use and Scope of the Visiting Committee Report.
A school's initial/continued accreditation is based on satisfactory progress implementing valid
recommendations of the visiting committee and others identified by the Committee as it monitors the
school's progress and changes which occur at the school throughout the decennial cycle. To monitor the
school's progress in the Follow-Up Program the Committee requires that the principal of University Park
Campus School submit routine Two- and Five-Year Progress Reports documenting the current status of
all evaluation report recommendations, with particular detail provided for any recommendation which
may have been rejected or those items on which no action has been taken. In addition, responses must
be detailed on all recommendations highlighted by the Committee in its notification letters to the school.
School officials are expected to have completed or be in the final stages of completion of all valid
visiting committee recommendations by the time the Five-Year Progress Report is submitted. The
Committee may request additional Special Progress Reports if one or more of the Standards are not
being met in a satisfactory manner or if additional information is needed on matters relating to
evaluation report recommendations or substantive changes in the school.
To ensure that it has current information about the school, the Committee has an established
Policy on Substantive Change requiring that principals of member schools report to the Committee
within sixty days (60) of occurrence any substantive change which negatively impacts on the school's
adherence to the Committee's Standards for Accreditation. The report of substantive change must
describe the change itself and detail any impact which the change has had on the school's ability to meet
the Standards for Accreditation. The Committee's Substantive Change Policy is included in the
Appendix on page 90. All other substantive changes should be included in the Two- and Five-Year
Progress Reports and/or the Annual Report which is required of each member school to ensure that the
Committee office has current statistical data on the school.
The Committee urges school officials to establish a formal follow-up program at once to review
and implement all findings of the self-study and valid recommendations identified in the evaluation
report. An outline of the Follow-Up Program is available in the Committee’s Accreditation Handbook
which was given to the school at the onset of the self-study. Additional direction regarding suggested
procedures and reporting requirements is provided at Follow-Up Seminars offered by Committee staff
following the on-site visit.
The Visiting Committee wishes to express its appreciation for the hospitality extended by the
principal, teachers, staff and students of University Park Campus School during the visit.
Page 87 of 89

APPENDIX A
University Park Campus School
NEASC Accreditation Visit
October 14-17, 2012
Visiting Committee
Eric Feldborg
Great Bay eLearning Charter School
Exeter, NH 03833
Carol Luckenbach
Regional School District #13
Durham, CT 06422
Tricia Breckenridge
Keene High School
Keene, NH 03431
Joan Lynn
Millis High School
Millis, MA
Karen Levin
City on a Hill Charter School
Roxbury, MA 02119
Caryn Stedman
The Metropolitan Learning Center Magnet
School
Bloomfield, CT 06002
Heather Maxen
Waterbury Arts Magnet School
Waterbury, CT 06706
Candice Anderson
Excel High School
South Boston, MA 02127
Sharon McCutcheon
Classical Magnet School
Hartford, CT 06105
Christopher Sandford
Wheeler High School/Middle School
North Stonington, CT 06359
Kevin Wolgemuth
Mount Everett Regional School
Sheffield, MA 01257
Debbie Mortensen
University High School of Science and Engineering
Hartford, CT 06112
Susan Fontecchio
West Bridgewater Middle-Senior High School
West Bridgewater, MA 02379
Enrique Sanchez
Bartlett Junior-Senior High School
Webster, MA 01570
Page 88 of 89

APPENDIX B
NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS & COLLEGES
Committee on Public Secondary Schools
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE POLICY
Principals of member schools must report to the Committee within sixty (60) days of occurrence any
substantive change in the school which has a negative impact on the school's ability to meet any of the
Committee's Standards for Accreditation. The report of a substantive change must describe the change
itself as well as detail the impact on the school’s ability to meet the Standards. The following are
potential areas where there might be negative substantive changes which must be reported:
- elimination of fine arts, practical arts and student activities
- diminished upkeep and maintenance of facilities
- significantly decreased funding
- cuts in the level of administrative and supervisory staffing
- cuts in the number of teachers and/or guidance counselors
- grade level responsibilities of the principal
- cuts in the number of support staff
- decreases in student services
- cuts in the educational media staffing
- increases in student enrollment that cannot be accommodated
- takeover by the state
- inordinate user fees
- changes in the student population that warrant program or staffing modification(s)
that cannot be accommodated, e.g., the number of special needs students or
vocational students or students with limited English proficiency
Page 89 of 89