The Best and Worst Performing School Districts in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Education Assessment Model was developed by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute for the purpose of permitting policy makers to determine how well schools perform on MCAS tests, given such important factors as socioeconomic characteristics, past test performance and changes in spending per student and in class size [1]  

The model makes it possible to determine how well schools are doing, given that, while factors such as these are important determinants of performance, they are nevertheless beyond the control of schools themselves.  Educators can use results to identify schools that outperform the model and to observe teaching and administrative methods employed by those schools.  Because the model does a good job at predicting school performance, schools that perform substantially better (or worse) than predicted are worth studying for the good (or bad) example they provide.  We created two ratings of school districts based on our findings.  The first, “District Rankings for Achieving Good Performance,” lists school districts according to their ability to exceed the model’s predictions of the fraction of students that score in the “good” (G) category (Advanced or Proficient on MCAS).  Schools with lower numbers, i.e. a rating close to “1,” outperform schools with higher ones.  The closer the district comes to getting a “1” rating, the more the actual fraction of students from that district falling in the “good’ (G) category exceeds that predicted by the model.

Table 1

The 15 Best-Performing Massachusetts School Districts

We see that the Hadley district stands out as the best of the best schools by falling among the top ten for five of the six ratings, the exception being the 4^th grade P rating.  Clinton, Methuen, Stoneham and Tyngsborough were next in performance, falling in the top ten for three out of the six ratings. Table 2 identifies the 12 schools that fell in the bottom ten for at least two of the six ratings and that, by the same measure, registered poor performance.  We see that, by this measure, Narragansett was the worst of the worst, falling in the bottom ten for its results under the G and P ratings for both 4^th and 10^th graders.  Next in order were Gateway and Somerset. 

Table 2

The 12 Worst-Performing Massachusetts School Districts

Department of Education Ratings

Due to the changes mandated by the Education Reform Act of 1993, Massachusetts public high school sophomores will be required, beginning in 2003, to pass the MCAS test as a condition for graduation.  In view of the poor performance shown on past MCAS tests, there is a growing fear that many of these students will not pass and will therefore be denied graduation.  Various groups are calling for the elimination or at least the weakening of the MCAS requirement – a concession that would represent a serious compromise of the principles on which the state has invested some $6 billion in education reform. It thus becomes imperative that Massachusetts school administrators determine as quickly as possible what they can do to improve performance on the MCAS tests. 

To this end, they need to determine which schools are doing a good job and which a poor job of preparing students for the MCAS tests.  They need to learn what the good schools are doing right and what the bad schools are doing wrong. On January 9, 2001, the Massachusetts Department of Education took what it intended to be a step in this direction by issuing its “cornerstone” School Performance Rating Process (SPRP) report.  The report rated Massachusetts public schools for their improvement on MCAS tests over the period 1998 to 2000 according to whether they had (1) exceeded, (2) met, (3) approached or (4) failed to meet DOE expectations for improvement. Under the DOE rating system, schools were subjected to a varying standard, depending on how they performed on the 1998 tests.  The poorer they did on the 1998 tests, the higher the standard of improvement required.    

Schools whose 1998 performance was “very high” had to improve their average MCAS score by 1-3 points, while schools whose 1998 performance was “critically low” had to improve by 5-7 points to meet expectations. Schools identified as failing to meet DOE expectations can receive warnings or “referrals for review.”  School districts found to be “chronically under-performing” can be put in state receivership.  Conversely, schools identified as exceeding DOE expectations become eligible for recognition as “exemplary” schools or role models for others to emulate.  Unfortunately, the DOE rating system is a badly flawed and misleading interpretation of MCAS test results.  The problem lies in the fact that, despite claims of statistical rigor, the DOE ratings amount to nothing more than the application of subjective and arbitrary standards to the data.  Merely saying that a given school “failed” to meet or “exceeded” some predetermined standard for improvement does not in and of itself tell us anything about how good a job that school did teaching its students. The problem lies in the failure by DOE to consider socioeconomic factors and other factors that are  known to enter importantly into the determination of school performance.  Applying similar standards to schools with widely varying socioeconomic characteristics is to load the dice against schools that are disadvantaged by virtue of these characteristics. 

BHI rating is a better indicator

Looking at Table 1 of Best-Performing Schools, we see that BHI’s top rated school district is Hadley. However, the DOE rates Hadley as “failing” at the 4th and 10th grade levels.  Similarly, the DOE rated Chelsea’s 4^th and 10^th grade levels and Oxford and Tyngsborough’s 4^th grade levels as failing, where the BHI model reveals that these schools are in fact exceeding their potential.  This highlights the pitfalls of the DOE method of assessing improvement solely according to MCAS scores and a preconceived standard of performance. Comparing Table 2 of Worst-Performing Schools to the DOE rating again shows some significant discrepancies.  Millis 4^th grade, Hudson 8^th grade and Watertown 8^th and 10^th grades were all labelled as meeting the improvement expectations of the DOE.  But, as shown in Table 2, the BHI model reveals that these schools are not meeting their performance potential at these grade levels. It is important to recognize that BHI’s rating system is intended to show how well or poorly a school performed, given the socioeconomic character of the community it serves and other factors beyond the control of the school’s administrators and teachers. The BHI rating system therefore reflects the quality of teaching and utilization of school resources, not the level of results produced by the school.  Performing well on the BHI model is indicative of exceeding or achieving what can be expected of a district, given socioeconomic factors and the like. 

Schools given a high rating by the BHI model might do poorly on MCAS when their raw scores, unadjusted for these factors, are compared with other schools.  Schools given a low BHI rating might conversely turn out to do well when their raw MCAS scores are compared to other schools. Table 3 lists schools according to their combined English, Mathematics and Science rankings for each grade level in the good (G) category (Advance or Proficient), with schools with lower numbers, i.e. a rank close to 1, outperforming schools with higher ones.  If a school district is ranked close to 1, then that particular district’s actual proportion of students in the good (G) category is substantially higher than that predicted by the model.  We see, for example, that for 4^th graders, the Sutton school district did the best job (with a 1 ranking) of outperforming the model and that the Chesterfield Goshen Regional district did the worst job (with a 215 ranking) of measuring up to what the model predicted. Table 4 provides a second ranking, reflecting a district’s success in reducing the fraction of students doing poorly, i.e. falling in the Poor (P) or Failing category.  The closer to 1 that a district is ranked, the more successful it was in keeping the fraction of students who perform poorly below what the model predicted for that district.  Thus, of all districts, the Everett district did the best job of reducing poor performance for 4^th graders. Finally in Table 5, we list districts alphabetically, providing the G and P rankings for each district. Again, for both categories, the closer the rank is to 1 the better the district performed.

Table 3

District Rankings for Achieving Good Performance

	Grade 4		Grade 8		Grade 10
Rank based on the model*	School District	Rank based on actual scores	School District	Rank based on actual scores	School District	Rank based on actual scores
1	Sutton	53	Nantucket	52	Stoneham	28
2	Clinton	82	Medway	9	Norton	26
3	Eastham	47	Clinton	78	Hadley	43
4	Hadley	27	Wellesley	2	Shrewsbury	21
5	Everett	130	Hamilton Wenham	5	Bourne	90
6	Oxford	83	Dighton Rehoboth	49	Provincetown	149
7	Monson	41	Hadley	60	Grafton	34
8	Lynnfield	8	Hanover	39	Harwich	37
9	Tyngsborough	74	Sandwich	33	Norwell	8
10	Methuen	112	Stoneham	46	Tyngsborough	115
11	Lenox	15	Central Berkshire	42	Gill Montague	130
12	North Brookfield	78	Methuen	127	Westborough	15
13	Southbridge	143	Lee	72	Dennis Yarmouth	84
14	Shrewsbury	25	Tyngsborough	57	North Adams	106
15	Medfield	6	East Longmeadow	55	Amherst-Pelham	10
16	Spencer East Brookfield	108	Milford	106	Hanover	38
17	Holbrook	115	Middleborough	108	Mendon Upton	56
18	Tewksbury	85	North Reading	14	Chelsea	214
19	West Bridgewater	63	Medford	136	Southbridge	143
20	North Attleborough	65	Hingham	19	North Brookfield	65
21	Franklin	28	Norwell	25	Webster	165
22	Southwick Tolland	98	Carver	141	Mansfield	81
23	Mansfield	80	Swampscott	31	Ayer	120
24	Walpole	32	Beverly	54	Hingham	25
25	Southborough	24	Hull	145	Bridgewater Raynham	80
26	Lee	113	Gloucester	140	Northboro-Southboro	5
27	Foxborough	45	Barnstable	79	Malden	158
28	Hatfield	89	Northampton	67	Pittsfield	150
29	Grafton	61	Leominster	146	Needham	14
30	Wachusett Reg.	26	Quincy	110	Sharon	13
31	Lexington	4	Arlington	37	Braintree	68
32	Mendon Upton	17	Greenfield	152	Reading	30
33	Westford	9	Chelsea	189	Nauset	45
34	Cambridge	163	Concord	4	Gloucester	153
35	Springfield	205	New Bedford	188	Belchertown	62
36	Littleton	22	North Attleborough	83	Greenfield	147
37	East Longmeadow	14	Attleboro	153	Westwood	2
38	Holyoke	214	Silver Lake	89	Cohasset	7
39	Norwood	36	Pittsfield	149	South Hadley	112
40	Easton	52	Amesbury	93	Ware	203
41	North Reading	11	Groton Dunstable	22	Sandwich	55
42	Dartmouth	134	Worcester	179	Milford	107
43	Chelsea	212	Amherst-Pelham	32	Lenox	4
44	Wellesley	7	Ralph C Mahar	139	Worcester	194

	Grade 4		Grade 8		Grade 10
Rank based on the model*	School District	Rank based on actual scores	School District	Rank based on actual scores	School District	Rank based on actual scores
45	Worcester	167	Everett	168	Medfield	1
46	Lowell	202	Marshfield	90	East Longmeadow	74
47	Gloucester	123	Norton	80	Wellesley	16
48	Rockland	132	Rockport	43	Ashland	39
49	Newton	5	Newton	8	Lee	78
50	Northbridge	129	Tewksbury	120	Nantucket	101
51	Leominster	154	Belchertown	82	Mohawk Trail	70
52	Woburn	60	Cambridge	133	Silver Lake	94
53	Norfolk	42	Lynnfield	38	Natick	42
54	Carlisle	2	Shrewsbury	51	Dartmouth	148
55	Attleboro	153	Harvard	6	Belmont	9
56	Plymouth	66	Mansfield	87	Hamilton Wenham	33
57	Framingham	69	Nauset	86	Dudley Charlton Regional	97
58	Pittsfield	131	Maynard	81	Dracut	139
59	West Springfield	187	Easton	62	Auburn	59
60	Winthrop	106	Braintree	71	Millbury	71
61	Scituate	37	East Bridgewater	88	Northbridge	111
62	Dighton Rehoboth	92