Port Washington curriculum committee reviews K–12 building equity teams, expanded acceleration and supports for marginalized students

Port Washington Union Free School District administrators updated the curriculum committee on the district’s building equity teams and the ways that work is shaping instruction, access to accelerated courses and school climate.

The district liaison, Dr. Feny, told the committee that the building equity teams—started in 2003–04 and developed in response to New York State’s culturally responsive-sustaining framework—shifted the model from centralized district control to school-based teams of teachers, administrators and parents that review data, identify needs and design responses tailored to each building. “The goal was to move from a district-initiated central process to each individual building having its own equity team that could be responsive to its needs,” Dr. Feny said.

Why it matters: Committee members were briefed on concrete changes driven by the teams, including new acceleration pathways, broader AP access, expanded supports for students with disabilities, restorative discipline practices tied to a revised code of conduct, and stepped-up multilingual family engagement. Several members pressed for clearer public data to evaluate equity outcomes.

Access and acceleration: Presenters described a new middle‑to‑high acceleration pathway called “Math 78,” where placement will be based on three criteria—report-card grades, i‑Ready scores and a common midterm assessment. District staff said roughly half of eligible students may participate next year and emphasized a redesign of selection processes to expand equitable access.

At the high school, administrators said expanded AP access has coincided with higher participation and rising passing rates. Dr. Bear summarized the approach as targeted supports for subgroups—English-language learners, students with disabilities and demographic subgroups—intended to make subgroup outcomes mirror districtwide rates and to increase opportunities rather than narrow them.

Supports for students with disabilities: The district noted that some programs—such as an invest‑type transition program that serves students through age 21—affect how graduation rates are calculated and that individualized support plans and CSE reviews are used to scale services up or down. Presenters described built-in AIS and resource-room options, pull-out and push-in supports, and checks to ensure accommodations are in place for exams such as AP, SAT and PSAT.

School climate and discipline: Assistant principals described the district’s revised code of conduct, which pairs consequences with restorative work and uses decision matrices to clarify responses. Staff reported a substantial decrease in suspensions at one secondary building and said the reduction reflects earlier intervention, restorative responses and ongoing monitoring rather than a decline in school safety.

Requests for data and transparency: Multiple committee members asked administration to publish clearer, multi‑year suspension and chronic absenteeism reports disaggregated by subgroup so the public and the board can assess whether reductions are equitable across student groups and over time. Administration said the COVID era skews some comparisons and agreed to provide a historical view that accounts for remote‑learning years.

Multicultural programming and student voice: Schools across the district have expanded multicultural nights, classroom read‑alouds and heritage‑month programming anchored in student work. The district piloted a Spanish‑language college night and plans a multi‑year outreach program for first‑generation families that includes campus visits. Elementary pilots will survey third‑ to fifth‑grade students to ensure each child has a trusted adult at school.

Language access and family engagement: Administrators said the district has provided translation and interpretation at roughly 15–20 evening events this year, used whisper/interpretation equipment and begun sending some spoken‑language messages. Staff acknowledged gaps—particularly in open‑house classroom breakouts where simultaneous interpretation is logistically difficult—and said they are seeking better solutions while continuing to provide printed and spoken alternatives for families who are not literate in their home language.

What’s next: District leaders said next steps include strengthening building‑level data use, expanding academic access K–12, deepening student voice, and sustaining promising practices by scaling successful projects from classroom to building to district. The curriculum committee set a follow‑up literacy meeting for June 12 and discussed inviting teacher and PPS office representatives to that session.

The committee did not take any formal votes during the meeting; members asked administration to return with multi‑year, disaggregated suspension and absenteeism data and with updates on acceleration and literacy pilots.