##### *2005-2006 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply) [X]{.underline}
Elementary \_\_ Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12 \_\_Charter

Name of Principal [Mr. Henry Frasca]{.underline}

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other) (As it should appear in the
official records)

Official School Name [Watson Williams Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address\_\_\_\_[107 Elmwood Place]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_

(If address is P.O. Box, also include street address)

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Utica\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_New
York]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[13501-4900]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Oneida]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ State School
Code Number\*\_[41-23-00-01-0012]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone [(315) 792-2167]{.underline} Fax [(315) 792-1133]{.underline}

Website/URL
[www.uticaschools.org/watson/](http://www.uticaschools.org/watson/)
E-mail <hfrasca@uticaschools.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\* [Ms. Marilyn Skermont]{.underline}

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

District Name [Utica City School District]{.underline} Tel. [(315)
792-2222]{.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 Ms. Barbara Klein

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

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 for 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 2005-2006 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 2000 and has not received the 2003, 2004, or 2005
    *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** (Questions 1‑2 not applicable to private schools)

1\. Number of schools in the district: [\_\_9\_\_]{.underline}
Elementary schools

[\_\_2\_\_]{.underline} Middle schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Junior high schools

[\_\_1\_\_]{.underline} High schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Other

\_\_[12]{.underline}\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$10, 500]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$12, 700]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

**SCHOOL** (To be completed by all schools)

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

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

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

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 or
its equivalent in applying school only:

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                                

  **K**       41        41                     **82**       **8**                                

  **1**       35        30                     **65**       **9**                                

  **2**       26        34                     **60**       **10**                               

  **3**       41        27                     **68**       **11**                               

  **4**       29        36                     **65**       **12**                               

  **5**       30        21                     **51**       **ungraded**   11        3           **14**

  **6**                                                                                          

                                    **TOTAL                                                      **405**
                                    STUDENTS                                                     
                                    IN THE                                                       
                                    APPLYING                                                     
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                   
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- -------------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [21]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [54]{.underline} % Black or African American

[18]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

Use only the five standard categories in reporting the racial/ethnic
composition of the school.

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_[22]{.underline}\_\_%

> \[This rate should be calculated using the grid below. The answer to
> (6) is the mobility rate.\]

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      42
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      55
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    97
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 448
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  .2165
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           21.65
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

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

[48]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_[9]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Specify languages: Spanish, Bosnian, Khmer, Russian, Vietnamese,
> Karen, Maay Maay, Creole and Latvian

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

Total number students who qualify: [392]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

> If this method does not produce an accurate estimate of the percentage
> of students from low‑income families or the school does not
> participate in the federally‑supported lunch program, specify a more
> accurate estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it
> arrived at this estimate.

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_[14]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

\_\_[56]{.underline}\_\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act. Do not add additional categories.

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Autism \_[0]{.underline}\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deafness \_[10]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deaf-Blindness \_[28]{.underline}\_Specific
Learning Disability

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Emotional Disturbance \_[16]{.underline}\_Speech or
Language Impairment

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Hearing Impairment \_[0]{.underline}\_\_Traumatic
Brain Injury

> \_\_[1]{.underline}\_Mental Retardation \_[1]{.underline}\_\_Visual
> Impairment Including Blindness
>
> \_\_[0]{.underline}\_Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) [1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers [22]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists [14]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals [0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
[12]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff [1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
> [6]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number [38]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
> [20]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio, that is, the
    number of

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers:
\_[19:1]{.underline}\_\_\_

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students as a
percentage. The student dropout rate is defined by the state. The
student drop-off rate is the difference between the number of entering
students and the number of exiting students from the same cohort. (From
the same cohort, subtract the number of exiting students from the number
of entering students; divide that number by the number of entering
students; multiply by 100 to get the percentage drop-off rate.) Briefly
explain in 100 words or fewer any major discrepancy between the dropout
rate and the drop-off rate. Only middle and high schools need to supply
dropout rates and only high schools need to supply drop-off rates.

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                            2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Daily student attendance  93%         93%         93%         92%         94%

  Daily teacher attendance  96%         97%         96%         97%         96%

  Teacher turnover rate     8%          13%         19%         31%         21%

  Student dropout rate      NA%         NA%         NA%         NA%         NA%
  (middle/high)                                                             

  Student drop-off rate     NA%         NA%         NA%         NA%         NA%
  (high school)                                                             
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Instruction at Watson Williams Elementary School begins with the New
York State Learning Standards,

follows the defined curriculum and reaches students through high
quality, multi-sensory and imaginative

lessons. Education at Watson Williams begins with the children, follows
their undefined potential while

reaching beyond the classroom. A belief pervades that all students can
succeed as articulated in the

school's mission statement:

*"Watson Williams Elementary School will ensure high academic
achievement by providing equal and*

*excellent opportunities in a comfortable and flexible learning
environment. All students will develop*

*the knowledge, skills and attitudes to enable them to function as
lifelong learners and responsible*

*citizens in a changing society."*

Located in the heart of center-city Utica, New York known as Cornhill,
and constructed in 1992 it is the

newest of the Utica City School District buildings. It stands in sharp
contrast to the surrounding inner city

blight, which features many abandoned homes and businesses. Utica is a
city that has suffered both

economic and population decline. At its peak, it was a city of 125,000
with national industry and

thriving local businesses. Downsizing began in the 1960's, accelerated
in the 1980's, with a final

crushing blow coming in the mid-1990's with the United States Department
of Defense realignment and

closing of Griffiss Air Force Base in nearby Rome, New York. Today,
Utica's population is 65,000 with

an aging infrastructure and diminishing tax base.

Watson Williams' current poverty index, as indicated by the free and
reduced lunch rate, is 95.8%.

The kindergarten through grade five student body is diverse in ethnicity
and academic ability,

including significant numbers of English Language Learners and special
education students.

Many obstacles faced at Watson Williams stem from poverty and its
secondary effects. Students enter kindergarten with significant
cognitive delays as measured by the Brigance Kindergarten Screen.

They are in need of basic necessities as well as being language poor.
Student mobility is high. Communication from parents is limited. While
there have been intermittent parent support groups, currently, there is
no standing parent-teacher organization.

Despite these realities, students at Watson Williams are held to the
highest standards. It is essential to understand that the faculty and
staff refuse to accept any excuse for low academic achievement. Over
time, the teacher turnover rate has dropped and stabilized. Watson
Williams' strength lies with dedicated professionals who take true
ownership of the success of their students. This is evident in the
personal relationships developed with students and the personal
resources they donate to their classrooms.

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

**1. ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Watson Williams Elementary School is a New York State public school that
participates completely in

the New York State Testing Program. Grade four students are tested
annually in English language arts

and mathematics. These assessments are designed to measure student
achievement based on the New

York State Learning Standards and Core Curricula. The psychometric
make-up of the test is such as to

equate student performance from year to year.

Students are classified into one of four levels of performance based on
their overall test results in relation to the New York State Learning
Standards in English language arts and mathematics. Performance will
fall within one of four categories: (4) Exceeding the Standards, (3)
Meeting the Standards, (2) Not Fully Meeting the Standards, (1) Not
Meeting the Standards. In order for students to meet or exceed the
Standards, they must perform at levels 3 or 4. Students functioning at
levels 1 or 2 are working below state Standards and are required to
receive academic intervention services (AIS).

During the past five years, Watson Williams' English Language Arts
Assessment results have indicated steady growth. While 54% of students
met or exceeded the Standards in 2001, 95% of students met or exceeded
the Standards in 2005. Considering the level at which students enter
school, as referenced by the Brigance Kindergarten Screen, and their
language poor home environments, the 2005 ELA results

are nothing short of stellar. Watson staff is convinced that this upward
swing is the result of innovative measures to broaden vicarious
experiences and vocabulary. Instructional resources have been heavily
allocated to early primary grades. Reading time has been dramatically
increased with a greater

emphasis on nonfiction.

Achievement in mathematics has been consistently strong at Watson
Williams as evidenced by the past five years' assessment results. This
strength in the instructional program has been a stepping-stone to

the outstanding performance of 2005. The percentage of students reaching
the highest performance Level 4 in 2005 is nearly three times the number
in 2001. Some of the skills that mastery level students must demonstrate
include: applying graphical data, explaining reasoning, predicting
probability, identifying arrangements and combinations, analyzing
situations and drawing conclusions. The Utica City School District two
years prior adopted a more rigorous mathematics program that is
manipulative based and includes performance assessments. We also feel
that part of our strong performance is the result of having a faculty
member who teaches two professional development courses, " Thinking Math
I and Thinking Math II" which are through The American Federation of
Teachers Educational Research and Dissemination. Many members of the
Watson Williams faculty have taken both courses.

With respect to the economically disadvantaged sub-group, it is evident
across all five years included in this report that no significant
disparity exists. The economically disadvantaged sub-group includes all
ethnic as well as special education sub-groups. We are particularly
proud of this achievement as this reflects our belief and mission.

New York State assessment information may be accessed through the New
York State Education Department website at www.nysed.gov

**2. USING ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

In order to meet the needs of our students, Watson Williams uses data as
an integral component for

instructional decisions; both programmatically at the building level as
well as individually to develop

student academic intervention plans.

The data collection begins when a student enters in kindergarten. All
students are evaluated using the

Brigance Kindergarten Screen, published by Curriculum Associates. These
results are then broken down

into percentage of individual delay. Those students who enter delayed
are immediately placed in our

Academic Intervention Services program. This data then serves as our
baseline for future comparisons.

The Utica City School District utilizes formative assessments in English
language arts and mathematics

generating data results, which are continually analyzed. Watson Williams
studies longitudinal results by

item, grade level, teacher, and student. Summative assessments, in
recent years the Terranova, are also

administered annually with similar analysis.

The most strategic and vigorous data analysis is conducted utilizing
data from the New York State

Assessments. As criterion referenced assessments, they measure
individual student performance against

what is expected to be taught, specifically the New York State Leaning
Standards. The psychometric

make-up of the tests, which equates student performance from year to
year (i.e.: in theory if two students

have the same scale score in different years, they are at the same level
of learning), allows us to implement

a systematic reliable mock testing model. Individual test items are
identified for difficulty by utilizing the

P-value as compared to the region. While all items are examined, those
identified as mid-range in

difficulty are targeted for in depth analysis. Tests from prior years
are administered to current students

and results are compared to prior year's data set. The information
learned is then applied to fine-tune our

instructional program. These analyses, as well as instructional
decisions, involve the entire faculty.

**3. COMMUNICATING ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Student performance, including assessment results, is communicated to
all stakeholders in various forms,

which are designed to be clear and user friendly. Our goal is to inform
and generate discussion at all

levels.

At Watson Williams we believe that meaningful interpretation of results
begins with meaningful expectations. Assessment schedules, descriptions
and appropriate study guides prior to testing, assist students and
parents to prepare for testing and to interpret results. A parent
meeting is scheduled for New York State testing grades 3-5 during which
the content and mechanics of each test is described, as well as Watson
Williams' plan for instruction and tutoring. Student conduct
expectations are also clearly defined.

Students and parents receive quarterly report cards in all subject areas
including all core academic areas, special education services, special
classes and deportment. Student agendas provide daily written
communication between home and school for grades 3 --5. Individual
teachers prepare weekly progress reports as well.

New York State Assessment results are promptly communicated to parents
in a letter from the principal, which includes the performance level of
the student, an explanation of each performance level and a personal
invitation to a community wide meeting to discuss results. New York
State School Report Cards are on file in the Watson Williams library for
reference by staff and community members.

Formal parent/teacher conferences are conducted two times each school
year. For those parents who fail to appear for the scheduled conference,
there is a follow-up by the teacher and a formal written follow-up by
the principal. Every parent is reached.

Our Student of the Month assembly welcomes families into school to hear
a brief testimonial describing the Student of the Month from each
homeroom. Honor Roll or Progress Roll achievement is also recognized
with a letter home and a student certificate.

**4. SHARING SUCCESS**

Watson Williams participates fully in district and regional educational
forums. We are recognized as a leader in the area of data interpretation
and the use of data to inform instruction. This is evidenced by a recent
invitation for the principal to present at a regional forum.

Watson Williams staff members routinely contribute to the Professional
Development Program for the Utica City School District. This happens in
several ways including best practice sharing, collaborative creation of
instructional materials and workshop presentations. Student teachers are
welcomed as well.

Individual staff members contribute to area professional organizations.
They are active members of the Mohawk Valley Reading Association and
serve as Utica Teacher Center instructors.

Watson Williams teachers were recently highlighted in the local
newspaper, The Utica Observer-Dispatch. Over a period of several weeks,
they provided tips for parents to help their child succeed in school.

Our instructional and programmatic initiatives are detailed in the
Comprehensive District Educational Plan. This plan is easily accessible
to area schools. The Watson Williams staff continues to have an open
door policy for any school or district that would like to visit the to
observe our plan in action.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. CURRICULUM**

Watson Williams Elementary School aligns its curriculum with the New
York State Learning Standards

and Core Curricula for English language arts, mathematics, science,
health, social studies, art, music,

physical education, technology, and library science. Additionally, as a
magnet school for the performing

arts, students receive instruction in dance.

Our use of data keeps us always mindful of our overall population as
well as individual student needs.

We know that most of our students enter school with limited prior
knowledge, minimal vocabulary

acquisition and shallow content knowledge. In order for students to
build a body of knowledge as well

as develop language and mathematical skills we utilize an integrated
curricular approach. Classroom,

academic intervention, special education and special area teachers all
devote significant effort to

congruent instruction of the essential elements of each discipline.
Special areas classes in music, art,

physical education and dance align curriculum so as to preview and
mirror developmental classroom

lessons in both process and content. Specifically, vocabulary from each
developmental reading selection

is presented in the special area classes one week prior to the classroom
reading. Students have a chance

to sing, draw and act out select vocabulary words. This approach helps
students develop prior knowledge

through a multi-intellectual approach.

Reading instruction requires all students to process text of various
genre, topic and level of sophistication.

Students are immersed in text. They respond to a continuum of prompts
from literal to inferential. Key

comprehension strategies of activating schema, questioning, visualizing,
inferring, determining

importance, synthesizing, and self-monitoring are modeled and taught in
every classroom.

Writing instruction centers on the purposes of writing: to be
understood, to persuade and to acquire and

transfer knowledge about oneself and the world. Students are taught the
necessary writing tools of

vocabulary, sentence structure, mechanics and organization. They are
also taught how to create and

utilize graphic organizers.

The mathematics curriculum spirals. Counting, computation and model
representation are partnered with

intricate and complex concepts beginning at the earliest grades.
Mathematics is seen as a tool to record,

predict and plan. Essential computation skills and established rules of
operation are taught as a way to

recognize patterns.

Science instruction stresses the cycles in nature and physical science.
Specifically addressed are the

water cycle, life cycles of plants, insects and other small animals,
electrical circuits, seasonal changes,

weathering, recycling and conservation.

Social studies curriculum content includes geography, history,
government, economics and citizenship.

Geography covers basic land and water forms. History is specific to New
York State and The United

States of America. The function and design of city, state and national
government bodies are taught.

Economics and citizenship are integrated throughout.

# Watson Williams' arts programming allows students to appreciate and participate in various artistic disciplines, but also influences all instruction to be aesthetic, rather than anesthetic. All students receive instruction in the visual arts, vocal music and dance. Additionally, students may choose to participate in Studio Art, dance ensembles (jazz, tap, ballet), choir, band, orchestra and steel drums. Students may audition for our premier dance ensemble, "On the Road Dancers" and our annual musical theater production. Many Watson Williams teachers are active in the Arts in Education Institute of Lincoln Center, as sponsored through our local Central New York Council for the Arts. AEI provides professional development to teachers during the summer and a unit of study for students during the school year in collaboration with a teaching artist. The integrated curriculum model is designed to support a student in their quest to make sense of the world and take their place as contributing citizens.

**2. READING**

Reading instruction at Watson Williams is one component of English
language arts instruction and encompasses essential elements of
literacy: phonemic awareness, phonics, word recognition, background
knowledge, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and motivation to read.
The curriculum is based on the New York State Learning Standards, New
York State English Language Arts Core Curriculum and specific
performance indicators. The learning standards require students to be
able to determine literal details from text, make inferences, develop
connections to other text/self/world and to synthesize facts and ideas.
Students are expected to read for information and understanding,
literary response and expression, critical analysis and social
interaction. Some specific comprehension skills presented include:
locating details in text, comparing/contrasting, determining the main
idea, recognizing character change, interpreting figurative language,
sequencing events, determining importance, recognizing the author's
purpose and summarization. Language conventions and mechanics are
included in reading skills instruction. Both comprehension and mechanics
skills spiral from kindergarten upward.

Formal assessments are administered weekly, at six week intervals and
annually.

Beyond skills and concepts, our reading curriculum includes wide and
varied exposure to text, both by topic and genre. Students are immersed
in carefully selected text necessary to build background for
higher-level thinking.

This approach to reading aligns our instruction to the New York State
Learning Standards, provides broad general knowledge exposure to our
students and supports our mission, as stated earlier, to close the
developmental/achievement gaps with which our students enter school.

**3. MATHEMATICS**

Watson Williams' mathematics curriculum includes both content and
process. Aligned with the New

York State Core Curriculum for Mathematics, the content strands are
number sense, algebra, geometry,

measurement and statistics/probability. Process strands are problem
solving, representation,

communication, reasoning/proof and connections.

The content strands represent a vast body of content knowledge, taught
in an integrated manner to engage students in the construction of
knowledge. Within each strand, bands of content focus are defined. For
each band, performance indicators are stated. It is from the performance
indicators that actual curriculum has been developed.

The Utica City School District has provided a clearly defined spiral
curriculum. Students learn counting and practice basic computation
through the use of situational stories. They are expected to create and
recognize symbolic/pictorial patterns and identify
equalities/inequalities. Measurement content includes linear
measurement, area, perimeter, volume, temperature, time and money.
Interpretation of graphs, tables and narrative data is taught. Students
learn the attributes of basic plane/solid shapes along with the
properties of congruence and symmetry. Embedded in the curriculum is the
requirement to communicate conclusions and support them with evidence.
Formal assessments are both objective and performance formats. These
essential skills, along with our assessment model, equip students to
manage mathematical issues in their everyday life and prepare them for
more in-depth, abstract study.

This approach to curriculum design supports both content knowledge and
transference between academic disciplines. The mathematical process
strands of problem solving, representation, communication,
reasoning/proof and connections are the same processes that students
utilize for English language arts and other content areas. Moreover,
this curriculum design supports our school mission to enable students as
lifelong learners and responsible citizens. The continual interweaving
of process instruction is intended to make permanent in our students a
rational, evidenced based style of decision making.

**4. INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS**

Our teachers are, first and foremost, caring adults who know they have
the power to create the culture and atmosphere necessary for students to
thrive. Teachers also understand that for our students we must use more
than just the district developmental programs for English language arts
and mathematics. Our approach is to keep the developmental program
inside the time frame for which it was designed, not just do it slower.
Modeling and thinking aloud are second nature to our teachers. Daily
lessons across all curricular areas include hands-on discovery,
manipulative components and student partnerships. This mind set sparks a
variety of instructional methods and materials based on learning
standards and student strengths. For English language arts, teachers
have created and maintained large banks of carefully selected passages,
articles and stories. Similar bodies of materials have been created for
mathematics, science and socials studies.

Our K-5 Academic Intervention Service is supported by computer-assisted
instruction. All students complete daily lessons in both reading and
mathematics. Instruction is individualized by student ability and serves
as both guided practice and preview of instructional content. It
provides students with immediate performance feedback. It is also
another source of data for teachers to triangulate against the district
performance assessments, the student's authentic classroom work and the
New York State assessments, while developing personalized student action
plans.

The core of our instructional method is to look at each student
individually, not as a classroom. We develop a plan that addresses each
student's strengths and weaknesses, supports their continual growth and
development, which, in turn, allows for their success.

**5. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

Professional development at Watson Williams Elementary School is an
inclusive process of principal,

teachers, support staff and assistants working in concert with each
other and in accordance with the

Commissioner of Education regulations. We attend, facilitate and present
district/regional in-services.

Individual professional development plans are prepared and evaluated
annually. Additionally, teachers

are engaged in personal course work pursuing a master's degree,
additional certification, or growth in an

area of professional interest or need.

Grade level teams meet weekly to discuss all educational issues. As
well, our building level initiated

academic committees (English Language Arts/Writing, Mathematics, Science
and In-Service) meet

weekly and include representatives from each grade level and special
area. This horizontal and vertical

configuration ensures communication and sound recommendations.

Furthermore, Watson Williams teachers provide significant professional
development to one another.

Through the combined efforts of our academic committees, we have
established an ambitious program of

mini in-services. Driven by data prepared from item analyses of various
assessments and by the learning

standards, these 15-minute sessions are targeted to Watson Williams'
needs, conducted at the beginning

of the school day, implemented at no cost and provide teachers with a
balance of theoretical and practical

support. Recent presentations include: the use of sight phrases, revised
mathematics curriculum, base-ten

instruction - subtraction with regrouping, and differentiated
reading/phonics instruction. The brief format

and non-threatening setting encourage all staff to share with their
colleagues.

**NEW YORK STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

**Subject:** [English Language Arts]{.underline} **Grade**:
[4]{.underline} **Test:** [New York State Grade 4 English Language Arts
Exam]{.underline}

**Edition/Publication Year:** [1999 -- 2005]{.underline} **Publisher:**
\_[CTB/McGraw-Hill\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                        2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                         February    February    February    January     January

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                     

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting   100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully     100%        89%         92%         98%         91%
  meeting the standards)                                                                

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the   95%         49%         62%         59%         54%
  standards)                                                                            

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding the 11%         4%          3%          9%          7%
  standards)                                                                            

  Number of students tested             45          72          59          64          80

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

  Number of students alternatively      1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  Percent of students alternatively     2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                   

  **1 [SPECIAL EDUCATION]{.underline}**                                                 

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting   100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully     100%        83%         60%         100%        69%
  meeting the standards)                                                                

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the   88%         33%         40%         67%         48%
  standards)                                                                            

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding the 0           0           0           22%         6%
  standards)                                                                            

  Number of students tested             8           18          10          9           16

  Percent of total students tested      20%         25%         17%         14%         20%

  Number of students alternatively      1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  Percent of students alternatively     2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  **2 [ECONOMICALLY                                                                     
  DISADVANTAGED]{.underline}**                                                          

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting   100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully     100%        88%         90%         98%         87%
  meeting the standards)                                                                

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the   94%         47%         61%         60%         51%
  standards)                                                                            

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding the 11%         2%          4%          9%          8%
  standards)                                                                            

  Number of students tested             36          57          49          58          65

  Percent of total students tested      80%         78%         83%         91%         81%

  Number of students alternatively      1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  Percent of students alternatively     2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  **3 [AFRICAN AMERICAN ]{.underline}**                                                 

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting   100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully     100%        89%         93%         97%         94%
  meeting the standards)                                                                

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the   96%         42%         64%         38%         52%
  standards)                                                                            

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding the 16%         2%          0           8%          12%
  standards)                                                                            

  Number of students tested             25          45          42          39          50

  Percent of total students tested      56%         63%         71%         61%         63%

  **4 [WHITE ]{.underline}**                                                            

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting   100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully     100%        95%         89%         100%        86%
  meeting the standards)                                                                

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the   91%         65%         33%         93%         57%
  standards)                                                                            

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding the 0           1%          11%         7%          0
  standards)                                                                            

  Number of students tested             11          20          9           14          21

  Percent of total students tested      24%         28%         15%         22%         26%

  Number of students alternatively      1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  Percent of students alternatively     2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                              

  **5 [HISPANIC ]{.underline}**                                                         

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting   100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully     100%        80%         83%         100%        69%
  meeting the standards)                                                                

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the   100%        60%         50%         90%         44%
  standards)                                                                            

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding the 11%         0           0           10%         6%
  standards)                                                                            

  Number of students tested             9           5           6           10          16

  Percent of total students tested      20%         7%          10%         16%         20%
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**NEW YORK STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

**Subject:** \_[Mathematics\_]{.underline} **Grade**: [4]{.underline}
**Test:** [New York State Grade 4 Mathematics Exam\_]{.underline}

**Edition/Publication Year:** [1999 -- 2005]{.underline} **Publisher:**
\_[CTB/McGraw-Hill\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                        May         May         May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting  100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                       

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully    100%        95%         99%         98%         92%
  meeting the standards)                                                               

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the  100%        84%         85%         86%         60%
  standards)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding    61%         24%         31%         19%         21%
  the standards)                                                                       

  Number of students tested            58          78          67          65          80

  Percent of total students tested     100%        100%        100%        100%        100%

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                  

  **1 [SPECIAL                                                                         
  EDUCATION]{.underline}**                                                             

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting  100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                       

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully    100%        100%        100%        91%         93%
  meeting the standards)                                                               

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the  100%        84%         100%        82%         57%
  standards)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding    40%         21%         33%         18%         21%
  the standards)                                                                       

  Number of students tested            15          19          9           11          14

  Percent of total students tested     26%         24%         13%         17%         18%

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  **2 [ECONOMICALLY                                                                    
  DISADVANTAGED]{.underline}**                                                         

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting  100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                       

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully    100%        93%         86%         100%        94%
  meeting the standards)                                                               

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the  100%        84%         81%         90%         59%
  standards)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding    55%         20%         16%         16%         19%
  the standards)                                                                       

  Number of students tested            49          61          57          58          64

  Percent of total students tested     84%         78%         85%         89%         80%

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  **3 [AFRICAN AMERICAN                                                                
  ]{.underline}**                                                                      

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting  100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                       

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully    100%        95%         100%        97%         96%
  meeting the standards)                                                               

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the  100%        88%         88%         82%         65%
  standards)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding    57%         21%         31%         10%         17%
  the standards)                                                                       

  Number of students tested            23          43          42          39          48

  Percent of total students tested     40%         55%         63%         60%         60%

  **4 [WHITE ]{.underline}**                                                           

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting  100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                       

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully    100%        96%         100%        100%        95%
  meeting the standards)                                                               

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the  100%        83%         80%         100%        57%
  standards)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding    58%         35%         40%         38%         29%
  the standards)                                                                       

  Number of students tested            19          23          15          13          21

  Percent of total students tested     33%         29%         22%         20%         26%

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    2%          0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  **5 [HISPANIC ]{.underline}**                                                        

  \% At or Above Level 1 (Not meeting  100%        100%        100%        100%        100%
  the standards)                                                                       

  \% At or Above Level 2 (Not fully    100%        86%         100%        100%        70%
  meeting the standards)                                                               

  \% At or Above Level 3 (Meeting the  100%        57%         83%         83%         40%
  standards)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Level 4 (Exceeding    38%         14%         17%         17%         20%
  the standards)                                                                       

  Number of students tested            13          7           6           12          10

  Percent of total students tested     22%         9%          9%          18%         13%
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------