##### *2004-2005 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: \_\_ Elementary **[X]{.underline}**
Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12

Name of Principal: [Mr. Carmen Macchia]{.underline}

Official School Name: [Port Chester Middle School]{.underline}

School Mailing Address: [113 Bowman Avenue]{.underline}

[Port
Chester\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_New
York\_\_\_\_\_\_\_10573 -- 2808]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County: [Westchester\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
School Code Number\*: [66-19-04-03-0010\_]{.underline}

Telephone [(914) 934-7931 Fa]{.underline}x [(914) 934-7886]{.underline}

Website/URL:
[www.ms.portchesterschools.org](http://www.portchesterschools.org/)
E-mail: <cmacchia@portchesterschools.org>

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge all information is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\*: [Dr. Charles D. Coletti]{.underline}

District Name: [Port Chester-Rye U.F.S.D]{.underline}. Tel.: [(914)
934-7901]{.underline}

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge it is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board President/Chairperson: [Mr. Larry Lupo]{.underline}

I have reviewed the information in this package, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge it is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(School Board President's/Chairperson's Signature)

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school\'s eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

1.  The school has some configuration that includes grades K-12.
    (Schools with one principal, even K-12 schools, must apply as an
    entire school.)

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2004-2005 school
    year.

3.  If the school includes grades 7 or higher, it has foreign language
    as a part of its core curriculum.

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 1999 and has not received the 2003 or 2004 *No
    Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

5.  The nominated school or district is not refusing the OCR access to
    information necessary to investigate a civil rights complaint or to
    conduct a district‑wide compliance review.

6.  The OCR has not issued a violation letter of findings to the school
    district concluding that the nominated school or the district as a
    whole has violated one or more of the civil rights statutes. A
    violation letter of findings will not be considered outstanding if
    the OCR has accepted a corrective action plan from the district to
    remedy the violation.

7.  The U.S. Department of Justice does not have a pending suit alleging
    that the nominated school, or the school district as a whole, has
    violated one or more of the civil rights statutes or the
    Constitution\'s equal protection clause.

8.  There are no findings of violations of the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act in a U.S. Department of Education
    monitoring report that apply to the school or school district in
    question; or if there are such findings, the state or district has
    corrected, or agreed to correct, the findings.

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

All data are the most recent year available.

**DISTRICT:**

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_\_\_[4\_]{.underline}
Elementary schools

[\_\_\_1\_]{.underline} Middle school

[\_\_\_0\_\_]{.underline}Junior high school

\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_High School

[\_\_\_0\_\_]{.underline}Other

[\_\_\_**6\_**\_]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\$13,098\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\$13,505\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**SCHOOL:**

3\. Category that best describes the area where the school is located:

> \[ \] Urban or large central city
>
> **\[ X \]** Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban
> area
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [12\_\_]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in his
position at this school.

[**N**/**A**\_\_]{.underline} If fewer than three years, how long was
the previous principal at this school?

5.  Number of students as of October 1 enrolled at each grade level in
    applying school only:

  ------------- --------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------
  **Grade**     **\# of   **\# of     **Grade      **Grade**   **\# of   **\# of     **Grade
                Males**   Females**   Total**                  Males**   Females**   Total**

  PreK                                             7           133       114         247

  K                                                8           138       103         241

  1                                                9                                 

  2                                                10                                

  3                                                11                                

  4                                                12                                

  5             2                     2            Other       3         4           7

  **6**         144       118         262                                            

  **2004-2005                                                                        **759**
  SY TOTAL                                                                           
  STUDENTS IN                                                                        
  THE APPLYING                                                                       
  SCHOOL**                                                                           
  ------------- --------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [23]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [11]{.underline} % Black or African American

[64]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

[2]{.underline} % Asian/Pacific Islander

[0]{.underline} % American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[\_4]{.underline} %

> (This rate is calculated using the grid below. The answer to (7) is
> the mobility rate.)

  --------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **(1)**   Number of students who transferred ***to*** the     17
            school after October 1 until the end of the year.   

  **(2)**   Number of students who transferred ***from*** the   15
            school after October 1 until the end of the year.   

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum of rows  32
            (1) and (2)\]                                       

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of        745
            October 1, 2003                                     

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row (4)     0.042

  **(6)**   Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100                 4 %
  --------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
[13]{.underline}\_%

\_[99]{.underline} Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [\_3\_\_]{.underline}

Specify languages: [Spanish, Portuguese, and Creole]{.underline}

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [\_
\_64]{.underline}%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_[482]{.underline}

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_[\_14]{.underline}%

\_\_[103]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act.

[\_\_1]{.underline}\_ Autism \_[0]{.underline}\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

[\_\_0\_]{.underline} Deafness [\_7\_\_]{.underline}Other Health
Impaired

\_\_[0\_]{.underline} Deaf-Blindness [55]{.underline}\_ Specific
Learning Disability

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_ Hearing Impairment [26\_]{.underline} Speech or
Language Impairment

\_\_[2]{.underline}\_ Mental Retardation [\_0\_\_]{.underline}Traumatic
Brain Injury

\_\_[7]{.underline}\_ Multiple Disabilities \_[0\_]{.underline}\_Visual
Impairment Including Blindness

\_[5]{.underline}\_\_ Emotional Disturbance

11. Number of full‑time and part‑time staff members in each of the
    categories below:

**[Full-time]{.underline}** **[Part-Time]{.underline}**

Administrators \_\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_\_[39]{.underline}\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_[27]{.underline}\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_[13]{.underline}\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_\_[5\_\_]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> **Total number** [\_\_\_**87**\_\_]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
[\_\_\_19:1]{.underline}

13\. Attendance patterns of teachers and students:

  -------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
                       **2003-2004**   **2002-2003**   **2001-2002**   **2000-2001**   **1999-2000**

  Daily student        94%             94%             93%             95%             95%
  attendance                                                                           

  Daily teacher        95%             95%             95%             95%             96%
  attendance                                                                           

  Teacher turnover     8%              12%             8%              16%             7%
  rate                                                                                 

  Student dropout rate 0%              0%              0%              0%              0%
  -------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

**PART III -- SUMMARY**

In affluent Westchester County, 15% of children attending school are
classified "poverty eligible." In comparison, almost 64% of Port Chester
Middle School (PCMS) students are "poverty eligible." This high
concentration of poverty, together with ethnic and language changes
continue to impact middle school operations. In 1993, when the Principal
began his tenure at PCMS, 37% of students were Hispanic surnamed. In
2003-04, 64% of students are Hispanic surnamed, a 90% increase. Many of
our students come to us with significant gaps in their previous
education. We are a diverse school committed to success for every
student; 11% of students are African American, 2% are Asian, and 23%
Caucasian. We embrace all students and their families in our school
culture. This is the essence of the PCMS **Mission Statement**[^1]:
**Our *Strength is Our Diversity! ***

Our Mission Statement embodies our core values: to promote academic
achievement together with personal and social development; to
acknowledge responsibility for students as they journey from childhood
through adolescence; to support the transition from the elementary
school and extending into the high school.

PCMS provides a **safe and orderly learning environment** as part of a
nurturing school community. In the initial stage of our reform effort
(1999-2000), we conducted a school wide needs assessment, researched
best middle school practices, implemented comprehensive staff
development and increased accountability for all staff. As a result of
these systemic reforms and improvements in school culture, we were one
of only two schools nationwide to receive the **National School Safety
Award** in **1999.** We combine **high academic expectations**,
**character education and leadership** as part of one unified
curriculum. We endorse the principle that "**character education teaches
habits of thought and deed that help people live and work together in
families, as friends, neighbors, communities and nations**"[^2]. At PCMS
we integrate character education into classroom instruction consistent
with academic content standards and in conjunction with our commitment
to excellence.

Through our **interdisciplinary, differentiated curriculum** students
are **heterogeneously** grouped, taught the core curriculum and cared
for in small learning communities we call **teams**. In each team, four
to six teachers meet daily to develop customized action plans to ensure
*no child is left behind* and *literacy is connected to all content area
instruction**.*** Each team has a team leader who meets with
administrators bimonthly**.** This group, together with guidance
counselors, serves as the **School Leadership Committee.** In addition
to interdisciplinary team subjects: Math, English Language Arts (ELA),
Science and Social Studies, students attend **foreign language**
classes, **art,** music, technology, and athletics[^3]. It should be
noted, Special Education students are mainstreamed into
collaborative/inclusion classes. We offer Honors Math and English
Seminar programs to challenge 'advanced proficiency' students.

Academic Teams and "**looping"**[^4] for 7^th^ and 8^th^ graders are
unique aspects of the PCMS experience providing students opportunities
to develop academically, creatively, and to blossom under the caring,
watchful, professional eyes of our teachers. Our team approach stresses
organization and time management while nurturing creativity in our
commitment to flexible, multi-faceted, quality standards-aligned
programs to provide a rich environment for quality learning.

Each faculty member views him/herself as an ELA teacher who embeds ELA
skills into lessons. ELA is a priority: students understand that
literacy across the curricula is integral to being a successful learner.
Students experience success because of the faculty's dedication to
ensuring that curriculum and students' work meet NYS Standards. Teachers
devote themselves to identifying and delineating skills students need to
become excellent readers and writers.

**PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS**

1.  **Description of English Language Arts and Mathematics Assessment
    Results**[^5]

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) identified four
performance levels for New York State criterion-reference tests. In
**ELA**, student performance at Levels 1 and 2 is described as having
**"**minimal" or "partial" understanding of intermediate level written
and oral text. At Levels 3 and 4, performance is described as showing
general and thorough understanding of intermediate level written and
oral text. Students at Level 4 exceed the standard.

In **math**, the State standard describes Level 1 students as having
serious performance deficiencies: \"They may understand and use simple
operations." Level 2 students \"for the most part use only basic
understanding\" of varied mathematical concepts. Level 3 students meet
state standards as they demonstrate \"consistent\" knowledge of a wide
range of mathematical concepts. Level 4 performance exceeds the
standard. Students at this level provide evidence of superior knowledge
of key mathematical ideas. Students who do not meet the standards (Level
1 and & 2) are provided Academic Intervention Services (AIS) in math and
ELA.

Assessment results, Tables 1 and 2 displayed on the last two pages, show
**dramatic improvement** in **both ELA and math** over the past five
years exhibiting significant gains. This steady rise in *Levels 3 and 4
and decline in Levels 1 and 2 provides a preponderance of evidence that
strategies to close the achievement gap are working.* In ELA for the
year 2003-2004, 22 students who scored at Level 2 missed the Level 3
score by only one cutpoint. Based on the 2002-2003 scoring grid, those
students would have reached the State standard but NYSED recalibrated
the 2003-2004 cutpoint for Level 3. Overall it is clearly indicated that
our Level 1 scores declined and our Level 4 scores increased steadily,
providing proof of significant positive change over time and
demonstrating our ability to **sustain these gains in school
improvement**.

Both ELA and math Tables display performance of four subgroups**:**
Economically Disadvantaged, African American, Caucasian and Hispanic,
where improvement patterns, over time, are exhibited. *We are committed
to continue such progress and increase the number of students meeting
and exceeding the standard, while rapidly decreasing the number of
students in Levels 1 and 2.* Please note: subgroup scores for African
American students for the 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 school
years (SY), may not be statistically significant since the number of
students was fewer than 30.

PCMS mathematics results are exciting: it is clear from performance data
that our school is achieving dynamic growth. From 2002 to 2003, we were
cited by the NYSED for having one of the largest single year increases
in the number of students meeting and exceeding math standards.
School-wide math totals, at or above Level 3, increased from 66% to 90%,
a 24 point gain! As indicated by 2004 scores, this jump is not an
aberration; it demonstrates change has been institutionalized. Math
Table 2 indicates constant **Level 4 advanced proficiency performance**
**increases** and a **significant decline in the number of students not
meeting the state standards.**

All subgroups of students in Tables 1 and 2 display this **same pattern
of improvement.** When NYS and PCMS tables are compared, improved
performance consistencies become clear. PCMS scores were higher than
statewide results.

Our overall philosophy and our daily goal remain the same, "Success for
Every Student."

As stated in our District Plan, w*e expect to continue this positive
pattern of* growth on our locally developed monthly assessments, the
district annually administered Test of New York State Standards (TONYSS)
and the NYS grade 8 ELA and math standardized assessments.

**2. Use of Assessment Data to Understand and Improve Student and School
Performance:**

"*Good Assessment Drives Good Instruction*" is emblazoned in our minds
as we go through a cycle of data collection, analysis, synthesis,
reflection and renewal. To improve teaching and learning, local and
standardized assessment data are compiled as students move through each
grade, providing a network of usable data to modify instruction. Staff
analyzes standardized and monthly pre/post assessment data to increase
instructional efficacy and to **focus instruction.**

ELA staff receives sustained, on-going specific training with Ellin
Rossberg, author and reading consultant, with regard to Score Reports,
Item Analysis and Gap Analysis to assess student strengths and
weaknesses and design targeted curricular and pedagogical improvements.
Reading strategies and skills, determined essential for reading
comprehension, writing, and critical thinking, are assessed monthly to
measure student proficiency. Class group results are charted monthly and
posted for visual analysis outside of each classroom for parents, school
visitors, Board Members, and the Superintendent.

Additionally, the TONYSS is administered every spring to 6^th^ and 7^th^
graders and the NYS 8^th^ Grade ELA exam every January and math every
May. Through BOCES "Data Warehouse," staff analyze student achievement
data by group, by student, by skill and longitudinally. Data are used
for reteaching strategies, and skill specific supplementary units. A
student (general education, ELL or special education) who scores below
standard receives AIS, a specific skills reinforcement class. Mainstream
support (MSS) provides an additional academic class to reinforce
concepts taught in inclusion classes. In ELA, advanced students receive
enrichment experiences via our Seminar program which incorporates
'Junior Great Books'. In addition, we developed many school programs to
support all students by establishing skill-targeted extended day, AIS
and MSS classes. Teachers use assessment data to refine teaching
methodologies, drive instructional decisions and implement
differentiated materials for student success.

3\. Communication of Performance and Assessment Data to All

Our "reporting and accountability" system, in effect for three years, is
as follows: School: teacher-made monthly class group assessment results
and specific ELA skills are posted outside every ELA classroom so anyone
may see how well each group scores on monthly assessments presented on a
bar-graph displaying trends. Staff discusses student performance based
on standardized and locally developed monthly assessments during common
planning time, grade, team and faculty meetings and during professional
development days.

Student performance and achievement is communicated to and discussed
with parents via report cards, the school's Website, PTA and
parent/teacher conferences and special meetings called by the Principal.
Months before administration of the NYSED exams, parent meetings are
held to describe exam content and strategies parents can use to support
their child's academic achievement. After test results have been
determined, parents are informed of their child's performance and, if
necessary, informed about AIS and summer school support. Community:
student performance data is publicly reported at Board meetings
broadcast on Channel 74. The Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent
report and display scores and offer data indicating steady progress.
Board meetings are rebroadcast daily for two weeks. This year, two NYSED
television productions (featuring PCMS assessment progress): "Middle
Schools in Transition" and "Port Chester, Leading the Way" were aired on
Channel 74 and PBS.

Parents and the community-at-large may access PCMS student reading and
math achievement performance via local newspapers, the District and PCMS
websites:
[**www.portchesterschools.org**](http://www.portchesterschools.org/),
[www.ms.portchesterschools.org]{.underline} and the NYSED School Report
card:
[***www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrdfall2003/links/d_661904.htm*l**](http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrdfall2003/links/d_661904.html).

4\. Successes are, and Will Continue to be, Shared with Other Schools:

In March 2004, NYSED Deputy Commissioner James Kadamus visited PCMS to
celebrate our achievement gains. Deputy Kadamus was so impressed with
his fact-finding that he returned in May with a NYSED film crew to
produce a television program showcasing our school\'s achievements:
**"Against the Odds**", an apt metaphor for our student academic
achievement. It was aired on the PBS network throughout New York State
on June 2, 2004. The program received such acclaim that Commissioner of
Education, Richard Mills, invited Superintendent Coletti, Principal
Macchia, and teacher leader, Laurie Morra, to Albany to "have a
conversation" with him about our significant gains. Two hundred fifty
thousand viewers watched the taped "conversation" aired on **PBS**
throughout New York on November 23, 2004. We are honored NYSED
recognized and publicized our students' dramatic five-year ELA and
mathematics progress. As a result of this publicity, Ossining, Mt.
Vernon, Tuckahoe, and Middletown School Districts visited us with groups
of teachers and administrators. After visitors observed ELA and math
classes, we shared best practices in roundtable discussions.
Additionally, the Southern Westchester BOCES Superintendent visited; and
this year, the Amsterdam School District will visit. We gladly share
practices, strategies and organizational structures that have
accelerated student achievement. Additionally, Principal Macchia, past
president of the Westchester/Putnam Middle School Principals'
Association, regularly attends all Association meetings where he makes
many valuable contributions. He attended this year's **National Middle
School Association Convention in Minnesota** and he and PCMS staff
attend county and state meetings in all disciplines. At each venue, PCMS
leadership shares programs and practices that contribute to our
school\'s progress. ELA Coordinator Michael DeVito was interviewed on
WGCH **Radio** Station on June 26, 2004. This interview explored
strategies and best practices that spur our students to achieve. We will
continue to share our successes with other schools by **hosting more
site visits**, disseminating program information through printed
materials, the **school's Website**, and 2005 **local and National
Middle School Principals' Conferences.** One **workshop,** already in
the planning stages, concerning our ongoing academic progress, will be
submitted for presentation for the October 2005 NYS Middle School
Association\'s convention.

PART V -- 1. CORE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Our NYS Standards Aligned Curriculum (Grades 6-8): PCMS is committed to
meeting individual needs of its diverse population. We expect students
to meet or exceed performance standards in content, critical thinking,
communication and creative expression using differentiated strategies
tailored to student interests, aspirations and unique talents. Below, we
briefly illustrate our interdisciplinary literacy and technology
integrated curricula:

English Language Arts is our curriculum keystone! We have identified and
mapped 24 essential skills webbed to all core subjects. These skills,
aligned to the NYS 8^th^ Grade ELA Assessment, NYS Performance Standards
and the National Reading Panel's (NRP) recommendations (2000), are
"bundled" into a scope and sequence within each ELA class. Skills and
reading strategies determined essential for reading comprehension,
writing, and critical thinking, are embedded in all grade 6-8 lessons in
a curriculum that is spiraled, accelerated, enriched with and authentic
literature. Instruction is data-driven guided by ongoing assessment and
differentiated instruction. (Please see Part IV, 1-3 and V, 2b).

**Social Studies,** aligned with NYS Standards, is adapted from the
Monroe - Orleans BOCES Curriculum (2003). The 6^th^ grade program
focuses on cultural, social, geographic-historical, and political
factors and transitions into 7^th^ and 8^th^ grade American history,
geography, economics, government, and contemporary issues. Students are
**actively involved** in eight **cooperative** and **independent,
research-based** projects. Students learn skills necessary for written
and oral presentations: gathering, processing, and communicating
multiple sources of information (print and digital), thinking,
decision-making and problem-solving.

**Foreign Language** offers **French, Italian and Spanish** for
**7^th^** - **8^th^** graders. **Interactive activities** enable
students to understand and appreciate **diverse cultures and
traditions** via synergistic discussion of history and current events.
ELA skills are embedded and spiraled between students' native language
and the target language. Students excel on Foreign Language Proficiency
exams: more than 95% pass each year.

**Arts Instruction** is **interdisciplinary** and aligned with ELA,
social studies, mathematics, and science curricula. Here, we teach
students to make **connections throughout the curricula**---to
understand how personal and cultural forces shape artistic
communication; and how art, in turn, shapes past and present diverse
cultures, e.g. students follow the social studies curriculum through art
and learn how the history of humanity is deeply understood through
artistic expression. This interdisciplinary approach teaches students to
understand how basic problem-solving evolved into art as a form of
**self-expression** and **creativity,** using not only elements and
principles of art, but also **laws of mathematics and science**.
Students are taught relationships and common themes connecting all
curricula, encouraging them to become **creative problem solvers.**
Additionally, our music program interweaves interdisciplinary content
area skills and knowledge: two grade level concert bands and choruses,
two Jazz Bands, a Select Concert Band, a Show Choir, Vocal Ensembles,
Brass and Saxophone Ensembles and a Marching Band augmented by two Color
Guards. These varied arts programs include exciting and inspirational
opportunities for student performances that directly involve parents and
the community at large[^6].

**Mathematics** grounds students in a scope and sequence of analytical
strategies, reasoning, problem-solving, **higher-order thinking and
predicting skills.** Each student is challenged to master abstract math
concepts necessary for success in our contemporary world. ELA skills are
incorporated, as appropriate, to improve **comprehension** of **word
problems** and **vocabulary.** Teachers diagnose and provide on-going
student assessment. Multi-pronged **differentiated** approaches,
including student-centered, technology integrated projects are planned
in collaboration with bilingual and special education teachers.

Hands-on, Inquiry-Based Science is aligned with NYS Science and ELA
Standards. Based on higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, students learn
*Scientific Method* and basic research processes, science principles and
current scientific events that span earth, life, and physical science
courses. Real-life applications of new theories and startling
discoveries come alive in the school-based planetarium, the center of
monthly PCMS *Evening Sky Shows*.

**2b.** **Improving Reading Skills of Below Grade Level Students through
our ELA Curriculum.**

Our ELA Curriculum progressively extends and accelerates reading,
writing, speaking, and listening skills. ELA focuses on, integrates, and
"bundles" assessment skills embedded into daily lessons through research
skills, technology literacy, and authentic literature. As the *keystone*
curriculum, ELA encodes other subjects with essential skills. Teachers
present reading skills through an **accelerated** **literacy** program
that catapults students from grade-level to above-grade-level authentic
literature. ELA teachers created NYS aligned curricular documents which
allow teacher flexibility but achieve consistency *within* and *from*
grade to grade. Materials are chosen from **various content areas and
classics---**fiction and nonfiction (short stories, novels, poetry,
expository text**)**. Rigorous age-appropriate literature demands high
level **critical-thinking skills**---comparison, analysis and synthesis.
Authentic literature is used to create reading, writing, listening, and
speaking activities. Student work includes four-paragraph compositions,
daily reading homework, oral presentations, individual and group book
talks, group literary analysis, weekly writing assignments, high-level
vocabulary, website research, creative writing, and required independent
reading. Acknowledging diverse student **learning styles and skill
levels** by **differentiating instruction,** performance is assessed,
lessons are retaught, spiraled, and reassessed.

Each grade has an inclusion program supporting mainstream special
education students. The ESL/Bilingual program augments ELA strategies by
using visual aids, active class discussions and the **English and
Sheltered Instruction Observation** **Protocol**[^7] (**SIOP**) model to
facilitate high-quality instruction for ELLs in content area teaching.
ELA and ESL curricula are tailored to students' abilities. ELA teachers
have created a **book-rich, multi-genre curriculum** and **developmental
writing program** that identifies **essential skills by grade.
Interdisciplinary teacher teams extend** and **embed** these **skills**
into lessons across **all disciplines** including **technology
integration** and assessments. Flexible uniformity earmarks ELA and ESL
classrooms through teacher-written curriculum customized to students'
strengths.

Instructional strategies and skills[^8] developed to promote
acceleration of below grade level students are based on **scientific
based research** (SBR) of J. David Cooper, et al. and the NRP's
recommended skills determined essential for reading comprehension,
writing, and critical thinking. Supplemental remedial services are
offered to **below grade-level students** via **AIS, MSS, resource
room,** and our federally funded *21^st^ Century Community Learning
Center Program* **extended school day** (3:00PM-6:00PM) classes all help
our students meet and exceed local and state academic standards.

3.  ***The ARTS***: **Essential Skills, Knowledge Base and Relationship
    to School's Mission**

The arts are integral to our academic achievement. Research[^9] supports
our view that the arts are valuable and critical to a complete
education. Studies[^10] reveal a powerful, positive relationship between
study in the arts and other academic subjects, influencing attitudes and
behaviors that promote learning for students in various ways. Our
**award winning** interdisciplinary standards-aligned **Multiple Arts**
programs are linked to and **completely aligned** with ELA, Social
Studies, Foreign Language, Mathematics and Science. We develop and
enhance student learning through **team work, students' self-discipline,
motivation, enjoyment, expression, growth** and **self-esteem,
development of personal standards of excellence,** stimulating
**community service, parent and community support and involvement.**
Arts are integral to our school's mission: Students will "...**discover
their unique skills and talents**."

The essential mission and focus of arts instruction, which includes fine
arts, vocal and instrumental music, and theatre arts, are to teach
students to make connections ---so they learn how personal and cultural
forces shape artistic communication; and how the arts, in turn, shape
diverse cultures of past and present societies. For example, as students
follow the Social Studies curriculum through their studies of the arts,
(from cave art and primitive musical rhythms to modern art, classical
music and jazz), they learn how the history of humanity can be traced
and understood through the arts. **Interdisciplinary, multisensory** and
**multicultural** approaches guide students to understand how basic
problem-solving evolves into various Arts as forms of self-expression.
Visual arts become more than a demonstration of knowledge of elements of
art, but also the laws of mathematics and science (architecture, civil
engineering, monument design, computer and graphic arts). Performing
arts teaches story telling through understanding of opera, self
expression through vocal music and theatre, mathematics through
understanding of meter and rhythm. Students learn relationships and
common themes that connect curricula and apply these themes to become
creative problem solvers.

4.  **Different Instructional Methods to Improve Student Learning.**

Teachers have worked collaboratively identifying, mapping, and
connecting core concepts and skills aligned to NYS Standards,
determining what students need to know and be able to do from grade to
grade. Method and structure go hand-in-hand and the structure of the
curriculum is married to the instructional strategy. **Differentiation**
and adjustment of instruction for **various learning styles** and
**rates** make it possible to provide targeted instruction for those who
need extra support or use different learning routes. Methods include:
modifying the scope, pace, and depth of the curriculum to meet
individual student needs and scaffolding lessons for varying levels of
learning abilities.

Varied instructional strategies are employed to address the needs of our
diverse population; teachers use visual, kinesthetic, and auditory
modalities to keep students focused and engaged with lessons and methods
that lead students to practice effective content area reading
strategies. Methods include previewing text, noticing paragraph headings
and perusing end of chapter questions before reading a selection and
creating graphic organizers.

We use **interdisciplinary**, **multi-sensory** and **technology infused
approaches;** individual, small group and **cooperative learning**
**groups** enhance the learning process. They are effective strategies
to ensure every student; those with special learning needs to the most
gifted child, is **engaged in learning**, and exercises creativity.

Our instructional strategies for improvement in student learning begin
with ongoing assessment and diagnosis to improve the learning and
teaching environment. We diagnose and monitor student progress and
adjust instruction based on current data. As a result, instruction has
evolved to reflect multiple intelligences research which we have used to
customize our classrooms to exhibit higher-order thinking.

For students who have advanced in their literacy skills, we created an
enriched ELA curriculum, the **English Seminar Program**[^11]**.** The
ESP, an authentic **literature-based** curriculum provides more
challenging activities: **textual reading** of **rich selections** and
**text-based discussions.** *Shared Inquiry* drives the **Socratic
Seminar** approach to richer analysis. Each grade studies more than **12
novels** in addition to **Junior Great Books** selections. Authentic
literature, choice for students, reading complete original books,
nonfiction and expository materials, emphasis on higher-order thinking
skills, cooperative collaborative oral presentation activities, while
honoring and modeling democratic principles---are ESP earmarks!

5.  **Professional Development and Impact on Improving Student
    Achievement.**

Ongoing professional development (PD) for teachers and administrators
includes instructional content, best practices, interdisciplinary and
multi-sensory teaching, technology integration, student support,
numeracy and literacy. A unique feature of PCMS PD is our active
engagement as we **develop customized curricula.**

PCMS PD **accelerates student achievement**. A turning point began five
years ago when Ellin Rossberg, author and reading consultant, began
working with our ELA department to **identify skills** necessary for
mastery of the NYSED Standards, **align ELA skills** with the
**Standards** and **develop high-end literature reading activities** and
**reading strategies** for identified skills**.** The SBR reading
strategies **permeate every discipline on every grade level**[^12]**.**
PD includes modeling and observing lessons, and, **ultimately,
developing the ELA curriculum: authentic literature aligned to
standards, by skill and grade.** Sustained, ongoing specific training
includes understanding and using **Score Reports, Item Analysis** and
**Gap Analysis** to assess student strengths and weaknesses and design
targeted curricular improvements. During team meetings, ELA staff
turnkey train other content area staff since literacy skills are
critical for all content areas. Similarly, mathematics teachers receive
extensive PD from a math professor at the State University of New York
at New Paltz, to identify skills aligned with mastery of math standards

Driving district and school PD, all teaching staff views themselves as
**teachers of literacy:** reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
Embedded in lesson plans are ELA skills and strategies taught with
subject content. Comprehension, oral and listening skills not only
improve students' ELA scores but have changed the culture of our school:
students see the transference, make the connections, use reading
strategies for all subjects and have become better readers and writers.
Students know their school work is relevant and important to their
success.

Our district is committed to providing expert in-house and **BOCES
professional developers in content and support areas**. Time is provided
to pursue appropriate systemic changes that improve curriculum and
teaching. Faculty is encouraged to pursue **graduate level courses**
especially at our local colleges with whom we are developing
Professional Development Services (PDS): Manhattanville College and Pace
University. Faculty attends BOCES off-site workshops to enhance teaching
and student performance. Assistant Superintendent Kohlhagen prepares the
**District PD and Technology Plans** which undergird the PCMS PD plans.
They include **training in differentiating instruction; co-teaching
strategies, the inclusion model** and **technology** integration in all
content areas.

This year's staff is being further trained in the use of our Internet
portal, and **technology as an instructional tool.** Classrooms have at
least one computer; several classrooms have multiple computers. PCMS has
a state-of-the-art planetarium and three technology labs. One is used
100% by English language learners; the other labs are staffed by
computer specialists and are available to all teachers and their
classes. Technology PD ranges from **basic skills** to facility with
various **software** to ultimate **technology integration** including
research in all content areas.

**[PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS: please see attached
tables.]{.underline}**

**Table 1.** Subject: **[English Language Arts:]{.underline}** Grade**:
[8]{.underline}**

Test: \_\_[NYS Testing Program English Language Arts, Grade
8\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year:
[\_2004]{.underline}[^13][\_]{.underline}Publisher:\_[CTB/McGraw Hill,
LLC]{.underline}

  ----------------------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  New York State Tests          2003-2004    2002-2003      2001-2002      2000-2001      1999-2000

                                Jan.         Jan            March          May            May

  **New York State                           **\***         **\*\***       **\*\***       \*\*
  Scores**[^14]                                                                           

  %At or Above Basic Proficient 98%          91%            93%            86%            50%
  (Level 2)                                                                               

  %At or Above Proficient       60%          45%            44%            45%            45%
  (Level 3)                                                                               

  %At Advanced Proficiency      13%          8%             10%            11%            10%
  (Level 4)                                                                               

                                                                                          

  **PCMS SCORES**               **\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***

  \% At or Above Basic          98%          96%            99%            94%            87%
  Proficiency Level 2)                                                                    

  %At or Above Proficient       60%          67%            56%            42%            33%
  (Level 3)                                                                               

  %At Advanced Proficiency      13%          11%            7%             11%            4%
  (Level 4)                                                                               

  Number of students tested     208          199            219            189            195

  Percent of total students     98%          98%            100%           99%            100%
  tested                                                                                  

  Number of students            4            4              0              2              0
  alternatively assessed                                                                  

  Percent of students           2%           2%             0%             1%             0%
  alternatively assessed                                                                  

                                                                                          

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                     

  **1**. **Economically         \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*
  Disadvantaged**                                                                         

  %At or Above Basic            96%          92%            97%            91%            80%
  Proficiency                                                                             

  %At or Above Proficient       47%          52%            50%            24%            20%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      4%           6%             0%             1%             0%

  Number of Students Tested     109          85             76             80             30

  **2**. **African American**   \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*     \*\*\*\*\*     \*\*\*\*\*
  [^15]                                                                                   

  %At or Above Basic            100%         97%            93%            82%            81%
  Proficiency                                                                             

  %At or Above Proficient       54%          60%            52%            18%            19%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      4%           7%             3%             0%             0%

  Number of Students Tested     26           30             29             22             26

  **3**. **White**              \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*

  %At or Above Basic            100%         100%           100%           95%            99%
  Proficiency                                                                             

  %At or Above Proficient       85%          83%            75%            61%            59%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      27%          22%            16%            26%            8%

  Number of Students Tested     55           54             64             61             74

  **4**. **Hispanic**           \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*

  %At or Above Basic Proficient 97%          94%            99%            93%            81%

  %At or Above Proficient       50%          59%            47%            35%            18%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      8%           6%             3%             4%             1%

  Number of Students Tested     125          109            124            108            95
  ----------------------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Source**: \***NYS Overview of District Performance in ELA: NYS Results.
Jan. 2005, pp8, 18

> **\*\***NYS July 2003 Report to the Governor & the Legislature on the
> Status of the State's Schools p.5.

\*\*\*NYSED Form C, Summary of Component Test Performance ELA, Sept.
2004 p.2.

> \*\*NYS Overview of School Performance in ELA, Apr. 2003 pp. 5, 9,
> Mar. 2004 pp8, 18.
>
> \*\*\*\*\*NYS BOCES LHRIC DataWareHouse: Cognos PowerPlay Web
> Explorer, Jan. 2005
>
> \*\*\*\*\*Local data and New York Statewide Testing Program School
> Summary Report for 2001-02 SY.
>
> **Table 2.** Subject[:]{.underline} MATHEMATICS Grade\_\_\_**8**\_\_

**Test:** [\_\_NYS Testing Program: Mathematics Grade
8\_\_\_]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year: [2004]{.underline}[^16]\_\_\_ Publisher:
\_\_\_[CTB/McGraw Hill, LLC]{.underline}

  ----------------------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  New York State Tests          2003-2004    2002-2003      2001-2002      2000-2001      1999-2000

                                May.         May            May            May            May

  **New York State                           **\***         **\*\***       **\*\***       \*\*
  Scores**[^17]                                                                           

  %At or Above Basic Proficient              83%            80%            73%            76%
  (Level 2)                                                                               

  %At or Above Proficient                    51%            48%            39%            41%
  (Level 3)                                                                               

  %At Advanced Proficiency                   9%             11%            8%             7%
  (Level 4)                                                                               

                                                                                          

  **PCMS SCORES**               **\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***   **\*\*\*\***

  \% At or Above Basic          97%          98%            92%            85%            80%
  Proficiency Level 2)                                                                    

  %At or Above Proficient       86%          90%            66%            48%            38%
  (Level 3)                                                                               

  %At Advanced Proficiency      36%          30%            14%            8%             3%
  (Level 4)                                                                               

  Number of students tested     226          228            250            202            225

  Percent of total students     98%          98%            100%           99%            100%
  tested                                                                                  

  Number of students            4            4              0              2              0
  alternatively assessed                                                                  

  Percent of students           2%           2%             0%             1%             0%
  alternatively assessed                                                                  

                                                                                          

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                     

  **1**. **Economically         \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*
  Disadvantaged**                                                                         

  %At or Above Basic            95%          97%            82%            81%            76%
  Proficiency                                                                             

  %At or Above Proficient       78%          85%            57%            35%            31%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      28%          32%            0%             2%             0%

  Number of Students Tested     125          92             102            88             30

  **2**. **African American**   \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*     \*\*\*\*\*     \*\*\*\*\*
  [^18]                                                                                   

  %At or Above Basic            92%          100%           82%            67%            65%
  Proficiency                                                                             

  %At or Above Proficient       75%          90%            57%            27%            27%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      17%          17%            4%             0%             0%

  Number of Students Tested     24           30             27             15             26

  **3**. **White**              \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*

  %At or Above Basic            98%          100%           97%            90%            92%
  Proficiency                                                                             

  %At or Above Proficient       94%          98%            79%            65%            57%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      56%          39%            32%            16%            8%

  Number of Students Tested     54           56             66             63             75

  **4**. **Hispanic**           \*\*\*\*\*   \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*       \*\*\*\*\*

  %At or Above Basic Proficient 97%          96%            92%            85%            74%

  %At or Above Proficient       84%          86%            61%            42%            28%

  %At Advanced Proficiency      32%          29%            8%             4%             0%

  Number of Students Tested     148          136            155            122            123
  ----------------------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Source: **\***NYS Overview of District Performance in Math: NYS Results.
Jan. 2005, pp9, 19

> \*\*NYS July 2003 Report to the Governor & the Legislature on the
> Status of the State's Schools p.5.

**\*\*\***NYSED Form C, Summary of Component Test Performance Math,
Sept. 2004 p.2.

> **\*\*\*\***NYS Overview of School Performance in Math, Apr. 2003 pp.
> 6, 10, Mar. 2004 pp. 10, 19.
>
> **\*\*\*\*\***NYS BOCES LHRIC DataWareHouse: Cognos PowerPlay Web
> Explorer, Jan. 2005
>
> **\*\*\*\*\*\***Local data and New York Statewide Testing Program
> School Summary Report for 2001-02 SY.

[^1]: PCMS Mission Statement: "PCMS is committed to the individual needs
    of its diverse population. Our aim is to ensure that all students
    will achieve academically, develop socially and discover their
    unique gifts and talents."

[^2]: *Our Shared Responsibilities*. Office of Safe and Drug Free
    Schools. USDOE. January 2005.

[^3]: 7^th^ & 8^th^ grade male & female students participate in
    supplementary after school NYS Athletic Association Athletic program
    & weekly swimming lessons in collaboration with local YMCA.

[^4]: Looping requires that students and staff remain together for a two
    year period.

[^5]: Information on the NYS Assessment System can be accessed via
    <http://emsc32.nysed.gov/osa/>. Port Chester assessment information
    can be accessed via:
    <http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrdfall2003/links/d_661904.html>.
    Additional ELA & Math grade 8 test information is cited on the last
    two pages of this document.

[^6]: Such as: District-wide winter & spring, Vocal & Instrumental
    Concerts, local holiday parades and traditional "Band Night Marching
    Show." Students give Community Service through performances at local
    nursing homes, hotels, civic clubs, nursery schools, etc.

[^7]: SIOP Model, Vogt & Short, 2004, Goldenberg, 2004.

[^8]: SBR skills: Phonics (beginning readers), vocabulary development,
    fluency, comprehension. Strategies: graphic organizers, reciprocal
    teaching, summarizing, scaffolding, daily fast-paced structured
    lessons, modeling good work habits

[^9]: [Schools, Communities, and the Arts: A Research
    Compendium]{.underline}. National Endowment for the Arts. Wash., DC.
    1995.

[^10]: Highlights from Key National Research on Arts Education,
    retrieved Jan. 17, 2005 from
    www.americansforthearts.org/public_awareness/pac_article.asp?id=613

[^11]: ESP Program is based on The National Research Center on the
    Gifted and Talented.

[^12]: As examples of ELA standards and strategies integrated into
    another content area, see Social Studies, math, science and Foreign
    Language Curricula descriptions, Part V-1 above.

[^13]: CTB publishes a new edition every year since the first edition in
    1999.

[^14]: NYS will report 2003-2004 ELA scores in mid-February 2005.

[^15]: Please note: subgroup scores for African American students, for
    the 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 school years, may not be
    statistically significant since the total number students tested was
    less than 30.

[^16]: CTB publishes a new edition every year since the first edition in
    1999.

[^17]: NYS will report 2003-2004 Math scores in mid-February 2005.

[^18]: Please note: subgroup scores for African American students, for
    the 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 school years, may not be
    statistically significant since the total number students tested was
    less that 30.