##### *2006-2007 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply) \[ \] Elementary
\[ x\] Middle \[ \] High \[ \] K-12 \[ \] Charter

Name of Principal [Ms. Ellen Foote]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [IS 289 Hudson River Middle School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address\_\_\_201 Warren Street

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

\_\_[New York]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[NY]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_10282-1002\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_New York\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_State School Code
Number\*\_310200010289

Telephone [( 212 )571-5659]{.underline} Fax [( 212 )
571-0739]{.underline}

Web site/URL
[http://schools.nyc.gov/OurSchools/Region9/M289]{.underline} E-mail
[efoote@schools.nyc.gov]{.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 all information is accurate.

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Ms. Alexis Penzell]{.underline}

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

District Name [New York City Region 9, District 2]{.underline} Tel. [(
212 ) 356-7564]{.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 Mr. Michael A. Propper

President/Chairperson

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

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\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(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 on the same campus with one principal, even K-12 schools,
    must apply as an entire school.)

2.  The school has made adequate yearly progress each year for the past
    two years and has not 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 2006-2007 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 2001 and has not received the No Child Left
    Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools award in the past five years.

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

6.  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
    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(Region 9): \_\_\_54 Elementary
schools

\_\_\_21 Middle schools

\_\_\_\_0 Junior high schools

\_\_\_30 High schools

\_\_\_51 Other (K-8, K-12, academies)

\_156\_\_\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\$2800\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\$2800\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**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\. [9]{.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**       55        45          100

  **K**                                                     **8**       39        54          93

  **1**                                                     **9**                             

  **2**                                                     **10**                            

  **3**                                                     **11**                            

  **4**                                                     **12**                            

  **5**                                                     **Other**                         

  **6**       44        57                     101                                            

                                    **TOTAL                                                   294
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of 36 % White

the school: 14 % Black or African American

[14]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

36 % Asian/Pacific Islander

0 % 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:
\_\_\_\_3\_\_\_\_%

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      4
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      5
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    9
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 294
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  .03
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           3
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: \_\_\_1\_\_%

\_\_\_\_2_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_1\_\_\_\_

Specify languages: Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: \_\_\_30\_\_\_\_\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_88\_\_\_\_\_\_

> 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: \_\_\_24\_\_\_\_\_%

\_\_\_\_\_36\_\_\_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.

\_\_\_\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_2\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_31\_\_\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_2\_\_Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_Speech or Language Impairment

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

> \_\_\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
> Blindness
>
> \_\_1\_\_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\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_\_13\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_1\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_2\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_12\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_\_4\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_\_7\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_4\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_\_27\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_17\_\_\_\_\_

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers, e.g.,
22:1 \_22:1\_\_\_\_\_\_

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. Also
explain a high teacher turnover rate.

  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                             2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Daily student attendance   96%         96%         95%         95%         90%

  Daily teacher attendance   95%         95%         96%         93%         \%

  Teacher turnover rate      13%         22%         20%         \%          \%

  Student dropout rate       0%          0%          0%          \%          \%
  (middle/high)                                                              

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

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

IS 289 The Hudson River middle School is a small, 300-student middle
school in the Tribeca/Battery Park City area of New York City. It is a
dynamic learning community, thoughtfully organized to support its
diverse student body in meeting high standards. The community combines
high expectations with high levels of support, creating a bridge between
challenging curriculum goals and students' unique talents, needs and
learning styles. IS 289 seeks to develop in each student
critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. Our goal is to cultivate
in each student the habits of mind that lead them to thoughtfully apply
these skills in a variety of situations, both in school and in the
larger world. Taking advantage of young people's social tendencies and
needs, we create opportunities for students to develop, test, revise,
and refine their thinking and then communicate their understandings to a
larger audience.

IS 289 is a District 2 choice middle school, not a zoned school. Its
Department of Education mandate is to serve a heterogeneous student
body. The school selects students in the winter-spring from among
applicants to its 6^th^ grade. Our holistic assessment of applicants
includes evidence of commitment to collaboration, test data, attendance
data and teacher recommendations. IS 289 has made a deliberate effort
through its recruitment and selection process to create an ethnically
diverse student body. The school has developed resources to meet the
academic and social needs of its students and families. Currently,
approximately 35% of our students are from neighboring elementary
schools within two blocks of the school; the immediate neighborhood is
predominantly white middle class. Another 35% of our students come from
Chinatown schools; these students live 1.5 to 2.5 miles from the school.
The remaining students come from other District 2 schools, most of them
in Greenwich Village.

About 12% of our students have Individualized Education Plans and
receive the full continuum of services including SETSS, instruction in a
self-contained class (12:1:1) and related services including speech,
counseling, occupational and physical therapy. We have a very small
formal ELL population (rarely more than 5), but we provide at-risk ESL
classes for approximately 10% of our 6^th^ and 7^th^ grades.

The school houses three general education classes on a grade, grades 6
through 8, heterogeneously grouped, with a class size averaging 32
students. The faculty is departmentalized, with one teacher for each
subject area---literacy, math, social studies, and science---on each
grade level. We have only one Spanish language teacher who teaches
classes to both 7^th^ and 8^th^ grade students. We use block scheduling
for the four core subjects. Other classes, taught for single periods,
include physical education, advisories, arts exploratories (instrumental
music, drama, visual arts, and movement) and multi-disciplinary
exploratories (entrepreneurship, service learning, music appreciation,
and others). Small-group intervention classes focus primarily on reading
and math, but include all areas of the curriculum, and are held during
the school day as well as before and after school.

Throughout the curriculum, there is continuity in instruction: teachers
generally structure lessons using a workshop model. Except in
mathematics, teachers rarely use traditional textbooks; instead,
classrooms have libraries rich with trade books, both fiction and
non-fiction, maps, illustrations. Students also conduct research through
well-informed internet searches and trips to museums and other sites of
interest in the city. Student assessment is through projects, many of
which are integrations of learning in more than one content area.

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

1.  **Assessment Results:** Beginning in 2005-06, IS 289 administered
    the New York State English Language Arts and New York State
    Mathematics Exams on all three grades, 6^th^, 7^th^, and 8^th^.
    Prior to this school year, New York State Exams were not
    administered to 6^th^ and 7^th^ grade students; these two grades
    took standardized New York City tests in these two subjects. New
    York State examinations have multiple sections---objective
    multiple-choice, short-answer, and extended response sections---in
    contrast with the New York City tests which comprised only a
    multiple-choice objective component.

For both these exams, performance is indicated by a scale score that
falls within a level from 1 to 4. The scale score range for these levels
is adjusted year to year. Level 3 indicates performance at grade level;
level 4 indicates well-above grade level. Level 2 indicates performance
below grade level; level 1 indicates performance well-below grade level.

The total enrollment of the school has varied little since 2002, when
there was a drop in enrollment after the events of 9/11/2001. The
school, because of its close proximity to the World Trade Towers, was
forced to relocate for six months, returning to its building in February
2002. Since then, enrollment has varied only about 2% year-to-year.
However, since 2002 the school has increased in diversity, with the
enrollment of whites declining from 52% to about 36%; the enrollment of
Asian/Pacific Islanders has increased from less than 20% to now about
36%. The other ethnic categories, black and Hispanic, have remained
fairly constant.

Overall, our assessment results in ELA have followed a pattern of
improvement: percentage of students scoring at levels 3 + 4 in 2003 was
65%; 2004 was 67%; 2005 was 82%; 2006 was 87%. Subgroup analysis shows
that all subgroups (disaggregated data available only from 2004) also
demonstrated improvement: general education, special education, white,
Asian, Hispanic, girls, and boys.

Overall, our assessment results in Math have followed a pattern of
improvement, with a slight dip in 2005; percentage of students scoring
at levels 3 + 4 in 2003 was 62%; 2004 was 78%; 2005 was 76%; and 2006
was 87%. Subgroup analysis reveals that achievement of all subgroups
followed this same pattern, with some notable exceptions: in 2005, when
overall scores dipped slightly, two groups demonstrated improvements,
namely Asian students and females students.

For information on the New York State assessment system go to
www.nysed.gov.

2.  **Using Assessment Results:** IS 289 uses both formal assessment
    data from the New York State exams, as well as data from internally
    developed assessments, to understand and improve student and school
    performance. The school provides several opportunities for
    small-group instruction for students whom we identify as needing
    academic intervention services (AIS): in-school small-group classes
    twice a week, after-school small-group classes two afternoons a
    week, and an additional combined pull-out and push-in intervention
    for highly at-risk and formally special education (IEP) students. A
    Pupil Personnel Team, comprising administrators, classroom teachers,
    learning specialists, guidance counselors, social worker, and
    psychologist, uses the data to make referrals to one or more of the
    AIS services.

Once students are referred, frequent assessments are administered by AIS
teachers. Using this data as well as classroom data, student performance
is consistently reviewed. The enrollment in AIS classes, except for the
most at-risk, is fluid, and students may be referred out after
consistent high performance over a period of months. Students may also
be referred into services.

The school also undertakes item analysis of student performance on the
state assessments to determine instructional goals, curriculum sequence,
and focus for professional development.

3.  **Communicating Assessment Results:** All of the formal assessment
    data for IS 289 Hudson River Middle School is available to the
    public. School report cards are published on-line by both the city
    and the state. Local newspapers---*New York Times, New York Post*,
    and others---publish both aggregate scores of schools as well as
    rankings. Neighborhood newspapers also publish these results.

Our school makes hard copies of the school reports available to families
who cannot access the information on line, including translations if
requested. Results are shared during PTA meetings, as well as during
tours for prospective families.

The school issues quarterly reports to parents for each child which
detail student progress and set goals for learning. The school has two
formal open-school weeks during which teachers meet with families about
student progress. Other forms of communication include: email, phone,
and letters.

4.  **Sharing Success:** IS 289 has served as a demonstration lab for
    administrators and teachers, both within the city and nationwide. We
    host visiting administrators who are affiliated with Columbia
    University's Teachers College Reading and Writing project twice a
    year in our literacy, social studies, and science classrooms to
    demonstrate best practice. Our literacy and social studies teachers
    are frequent presenters at national professional conferences. They
    also teach workshops for teachers at Columbia Teachers College and
    through a teachers union certification program. We are a mentor
    school for another middle school in the city in literacy; their
    teachers visit our classrooms and our teachers work with them at
    their school.

One of our teachers has published both professional books and articles
in professional journals on best practice in reading and writing.

The principal shares best practice with other middle school
administrators in the district through monthly cohort meetings.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Curriculum:** IS 289 has a departmentalized program with block
scheduling which reflects the community's adherence to the principles of
the Carnegie Council's Middle School Reform Initiative.

Instruction in IS 289's LITERACY classrooms reflects the principles of
balanced literacy pedagogy. These classes use reading and writing
workshop models; regular use of read-alouds, whole-class shared reading
instruction, small-group literature circles, grammar and spelling
instruction, and independent reading are the basic strategies employed
by literacy teachers. IS 289 has continuity in instruction, as well as
an integration in curriculum between its literacy and social studies
classes in particular, and, to some extent, literacy and science. In
both social studies and science classes teachers work with the literacy
teachers as they develop writing projects for students. There has been a
strong effort to include a range of non-fiction texts, both with respect
to level and genre, in the libraries of the literacy classrooms and to
include non-fiction reading in the curriculum. The social studies and
science classrooms have also developed libraries that include a range of
texts, including magazines. Instruction in the form of whole-class
shared reading is the responsibility of all the content teachers, as
well as the literacy teachers. We have also incorporated internet
literacy into our curriculums. Project work at 289 has emphasized
authentic work for a real audience. We hope to strengthen this focus on
reading and writing for social action in all content areas.

IS 289 uses a standards-based MATHEMATICS curriculum that is aligned
with New York State Standards. We use several published curriculum
resources, including the Connected Math Project and Impact. In a
workshop setting, students are engaged in both independent and
collaborative investigations to develop understandings.

IS 289's SCIENCE curriculum has an emphasis on issues-oriented
investigations. Although the science content is broken down roughly as
physical sciences in 6^th^ grade, life sciences in 7^th^, and earth
science in 8^th^, teachers are collaborating on project development and
articulation that breaks down the artificial distinctions between
disciplines to reflect more accurately scientific investigation and
communication in the real world and to emphasize more integration
between science and mathematics.

SOCIAL STUDIES follows the guidelines of the NYS Core Curriculum and
Standards for Social Studies. Students study ancient civilizations in
6^th^ grade and United States History in 7^th^ and 8^th^ grade. As
described above, students experiences in social studies include a
variety of texts and other research materials, including trade books and
magazines, primary materials, both visual and text, videos, internet
resources, and, very important, trips to museums and historical sites
both in and outside of the city. Project work is strongly integrated
with the literacy classes.

SPANISH is the foreign language taught at IS 289, starting in 7^th^
grade. Instruction in this class combines language acquisition through
singing, simulation of everyday experiences, and project work with more
formal grammar instruction.

IS 289 offers Exploratories to all students two afternoons a week, two
periods each day. Exploratories are scheduled by semester; they include
instrumental music, drama, art, newspaper, dance, community service, as
well enrichment classes in math and science.

2b. **(Secondary Schools)** **English:** Instruction in IS 289's ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS classrooms reflects the principles of balanced literacy
pedagogy. These classes use reading and writing workshop models; regular
use of read-alouds, whole-class shared reading instruction, small-group
literature circles, grammar and spelling instruction, and independent
reading are the basic strategies employed by literacy teachers. IS 289
has continuity in instruction, as well as an integration in curriculum
between its literacy and social studies classes in particular, and, to
some extent, literacy and science. In both social studies and science
classes teachers work with the literacy teachers as they develop writing
projects for students. There has been a strong effort to include a range
of non-fiction texts, both with respect to level and genre, in the
libraries of the literacy classrooms and to include non-fiction reading
in the curriculum. The social studies and science classrooms have also
developed libraries that include a range of texts, including magazines.
Instruction in the form of whole-class shared reading is the
responsibility of all the content teachers, as well as the literacy
teachers. We have also incorporated internet literacy into our
curriculums. Project work at 289 has emphasized authentic work for a
real audience. We hope to strengthen this focus on reading and writing
for social action in all content areas.

Through our workshop structures we are able, in classrooms, to provide
differentiated instruction to improve reading skills of students who
read below grade level. We use various assessments, including running
records, conferences, etc., and tailor reading instruction to meet very
specific needs. Our academic intervention structures include small-group
pull-out classes, with a ratio ranging from 5:1 to 10:1, depending on
level of intervention needed. We use Wilson reading instruction for our
most struggling readers.

3.  **Additional Curriculum Area:**

    IS 289's SCIENCE curriculum has an emphasis on issues-oriented
    investigations. Although the science content is broken down roughly
    as physical sciences in 6^th^ grade, life sciences in 7^th^, and
    earth science in 8^th^, teachers are collaborating on project
    development and articulation that breaks down the artificial
    distinctions between disciplines to reflect more accurately
    scientific investigation and communication in the real world and to
    emphasize more integration between science and mathematics.

We have developed a skills-driven rather than concept-based program and
articulated 6^th^, 7^th^ and 8^th^ grade benchmarks based on 8^th^ grade
exit outcomes. The benchmarks address five science skills: identify and
define a scientific investigation; design a scientific investigation;
collect and organize data; analyza data; present findings and ideas.

4.  **Instructional Methods:** There is continuity in instructional
    methods across the core content areas. Our classes are 80-minutes
    during which teachers use a workshop structure. During the first
    10-15 minutes of a workshop lesson the teacher gathers the class
    into a whole group to present a mini-lesson which launches the work
    of the period. The bulk of the period is student work time, during
    which students engage in differentiated learning experiences either
    independently, in partnerships, or in small groups. During this work
    time teachers confer with students and keep records of their
    learning based on rubrics that match the learning standards. The
    last 15-20 minutes of a class are used to process the work of the
    period and formalize the understandings.

Although teachers in math and science use some formal assessments, much
of the assessment process in classrooms is through project learning.
Student work is assessed based on shared expectations as reflected in
rubrics.

5.  **Professional Development:** IS 289 has a strong focus on
    professional study. The school has made a considerable investment in
    staff development in the form of a staff developer for each of the
    core content areas, ELA, Social Studies, Science, and Mathematics.
    Three of the four staff developers are consultants and one is a NYC
    Department of Education employee. The model of this work is that at
    least one day a week the staff developer co-teaches and plans with
    each of three teachers in the content area. (A small school, we have
    only one teacher in each content area per grade.) The staff
    developer also chairs department meetings once a week.

Teachers attend professional development workshops offered through the
region or through professional groups. Some of our teachers design and
facilitate these workshops, most recently primarily in ELA and Social
Studies.

We also design our own professional studies, sometimes in whole group
configurations and sometimes in subgroups. The direction of this work is
generally instruction and assessment, although we also use this
structure to address the social and emotional issues of our middle
school students. These professional study experiences occur weekly after
school as well as in the form of weekend planning meetings.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**Public Schools**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

English Language Arts\_\_ Grade_6\_\_\_CTB 2004, 2005, NYState ELA Exam
2006\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_\_\_
Publisher_McGraw-Hill\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        January     June        June                    

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              91          81.6        67                      

  \% Level 4                           21          28          18                      

  Number of students tested            96          101         100                     

  Percent of total students tested     99          100         100                     

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    1           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              90          72          50                      

  \% Level 4                           5           15          6                       

  Number of students tested            39          33          34                      

  2\. Black                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              69          73          38                      

  \% Level 4                           8           15          0                       

  Number of students tested            13          13          12                      

  3\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              91          63          61                      

  \% Level 4                           9           7           14                      

  Number of students tested            11          14          14                      

  4\. Asian                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              94          82          64                      

  \% Level 4                           21          23          17                      

  Number of students tested            34          31          30                      

  5\. White                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              95          91          79                      

  \% Level 4                           26          39          29                      

  Number of students tested            38          38          45                      

  6\. Students with Disabilities                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              55          46          20                      

  \% Level 4                           0           17          18                      

  Number of students tested            11          12          11                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

English Language Arts Grade_7 CTB 2004, 2005, NYState ELA Exam
2006\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher_McGraw- Hill\_\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        January     June        June                    

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              83          82          67                      

  \% Level 4                           12          38          18                      

  Number of students tested            97          99          100                     

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100                     

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              78          72          50                      

  \% Level 4                           0           27          6                       

  Number of students tested            50          33          33                      

  2\. Black                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              73          72          38                      

  \% Level 4                           6           15          8                       

  Number of students tested            15          13          12                      

  3\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              54          63          61                      

  \% Level 4                           0           20          21                      

  Number of students tested            13          15          14                      

  4\. Asian                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              89          82          64                      

  \% Level 4                           11          41          23                      

  Number of students tested            37          32          30                      

  5\. White                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              94          91          79                      

  \% Level 4                           22          62          25                      

  Number of students tested            32          39          44                      

  6\. Students with Disabilities                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              44          46          20                      

  \% Level 4                           0           0           0                       

  Number of students tested            16          12          12                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

English Language Arts Grade_8\_ New York State English Language Arts

Edition/Publication Year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Publisher\_\_McGraw-Hill\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***DISAGGREGATED DATA FOR SUBGROUPS IS NOT AVAILABLE: SCORES ARE NOT
AVAILABLE TO MIDDLE SCHOOLS UNTIL [AFTER]{.underline} STUDENTS HAVE
TRANSFERRED TO HIGH SCHOOL***

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        January     January     January                 

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              89          69          67                      

  \% Level 4                           22          21          9                       

  Number of students tested            96          95          97                      

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100                     

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              68          55          49                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            28          29          29                      

  2\. Black                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              46          70          46                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            13          10          11                      

  3\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              73          48          78                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            11          21          9                       

  4\. Asian                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              100         61.3        48                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            26          30          28                      

  5\. White                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              98          91          80                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            46          33          50                      

  6\. Students with Disabilities                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              36          31          20                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            11          13          10                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Mathematics\_ Grade\_\_6\_\_\_\_ Test_TEM 2004, 2005, NYState
Mathematics Exam 2006

Edition/Publication Year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Publisher\_\_McGraw-Hill\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        January     June        June                    

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              96          76          78                      

  \% Level 4                           28          31          37                      

  Number of students tested            97          101         100                     

  Percent of total students tested     98          100         100                     

  Number of students alternatively     1           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    2           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              95          65          64                      

  \% Level 4                           18          15          18                      

  Number of students tested            39          33          34                      

  2\. Black                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              77          48          46                      

  \% Level 4                           8           15          25                      

  Number of students tested            13          13          12                      

  3\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              91          55          66                      

  \% Level 4                           0           0           29                      

  Number of students tested            11          14          14                      

  4\. Asian                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              100         89          86                      

  \% Level 4                           53          47          67                      

  Number of students tested            34          32          30                      

  5\. White                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              100         84          86                      

  \% Level 4                           21          19          61                      

  Number of students tested            39          38          44                      

  6\. Students with Disabilities                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              60          33          39                      

  \% Level 4                           10          8           17                      

  Number of students tested            10          12          12                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Mathematics\_ Grade\_\_7\_\_\_\_ Test_TEM 2004, 2005, NYState
Mathematics Exam 2006

Edition/Publication Year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Publisher\_\_McGraw-Hill\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        January     June        June                    

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              80          81          78                      

  \% Level 4                           24          34          37                      

  Number of students tested            97          99          100                     

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100                     

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              74          65          64                      

  \% Level 4                           8           18          15                      

  Number of students tested            50          33          33                      

  2\. Black                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              53          48          46                      

  \% Level 4                           0           23          8                       

  Number of students tested            15          13          12                      

  3\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              50          55          66                      

  \% Level 4                           0           13          21                      

  Number of students tested            12          15          14                      

  4\. Asian                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              95          89          86                      

  \% Level 4                           51          58          40                      

  Number of students tested            37          31          30                      

  5\. White                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              88          84          86                      

  \% Level 4                           24          78          39                      

  Number of students tested            33          37          44                      

  6\. Students with Disabilities                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              29          34          38                      

  \% Level 4                           7           8           0                       

  Number of students tested            14          12          12                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Mathematics\_ Grade\_\_8\_\_\_\_ Test\_ NYState Mathematics Exam

Edition/Publication Year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Publisher\_\_McGraw-Hill\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***DISAGGREGATED DATA FOR SUBGROUPS IS NOT AVAILABLE: SCORES ARE NOT
AVAILABLE TO MIDDLE SCHOOLS UNTIL [AFTER]{.underline} STUDENTS HAVE
TRANSFERRED TO HIGH SCHOOL.***

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month                        March       May         May                     

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              84          73          83                      

  \% Level 4                           19          11          24                      

  Number of students tested            95          93          97                      

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100                     

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              71          59          72                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            28          29          29                      

  2\. Black                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              38          50          55                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            13          10          11                      

  3\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              64          60          67                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            11          20          9                       

  4\. Asian                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              92          83          89                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            25          30          28                      

  5\. White                                                                            

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              98          79          90                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            46          33          49                      

  6\. Students with Disabilities                                                       

  \% Level 3 plus Level 4              55          25          50                      

  \% Level 4                           NA          NA          NA                      

  Number of students tested            11          12          10                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------