Manhattan College

School Profile Analysis

Student Name: Lauren Vachna ____________________________ _

Name of School: P.S. 340 Location District/County_District 10/Bronx ___________________ School Address:

25 West 195th Street ________________________ _Bronx, New York 10468 _____________________

Telephone #: Student E-Mail:

_(718) 220 1830 ___________________________ __lvachna.student@manhattan.edu________________

School Report Cards are available at (you will also be able to find them on Moodle): http://www.nystart.gov - follow the steps below: On the right side of the web page click on Public Web Click on 2011-12 New York State Report Cards Click on Bronx Click on the District Find your school (it may be by name so find out the name from your cooperating teacher) click on school Open Accountability & Overview Report

New York City website is http://schools.nyc.gov.

Manhattan College Dr. E. Kosky/Mr. D. Russo/Mrs. E. Gerace

EDUG 858/862/863 Fall 2013

Achievement Data NYS Elementary English Language Arts Students Results Files will be on Moodle

Year

Level Standards

1 Below Standards 17.91 48 1 Below Standards 13.3 33

2011

Year

Percent # of Students Level Standards

2 Meets Basic Standards (Approaching) 50.00 134 2 Meets Basic Standards (Approaching) 48.2 120

3 Meets Proficiency Standard 31.72 85 3 Meets Proficiency Standard 37.7 94

4 Exceeds Proficiency Standards 0.37 1 4 Exceeds Proficiency Standards 0.8 2

2012

Percent # of Students

Analysis of ELA Data Please indicate the % of students performing below grade level (i.e. levels 1 & 2). Please describe what Levels 1 & 2 represent (i.e. 1 below standards, 2 approaching standards). Compare the last 2 years to see if there is improvement: The 2011 English Language Arts results showed that nearly 68% of all students at P.S. 340 were performing below grade level whereas, in 2012 only about 62% of all students were performing below grade level. In both 2011 and 2012 the majority of the students tested were either below standards or approaching the basic standards receiving either ones or twos. Based on the data it is evident that in 2012 the amount of students that were either below standards or approaching standards had decreased compared to 2011. In 2012 the amount of students meeting the standards and exceeding the standards increased compared to 2011. This shows that overall the school made progress, as the amount of level ones and twos decreased and the level threes and fours increased. This school therefore, is on track as it makes progress.

Manhattan College Dr. E. Kosky/Mr. D. Russo/Mrs. E. Gerace

EDUG 858/862/863 Fall 2013

Achievement Data NYS Elementary Math Students Results Files will be on Moodle

Year

2 3 4 Meets Basic Meets Exceeds Standards Proficiency Proficiency (Approaching) Standard Standards 2011 Percent 5.56 45.18 40.37 8.89 # of Students 15 122 109 24 Year Level 1 2 3 4 Standards Below Meets Basic Meets Exceeds Standards Standards Proficiency Proficiency (Approaching) Standard Standards 2012 Percent 3.5 37.8 43.3 15.4 # of Students 9 96 110 39 Analysis of ELA Data Please indicate the % of students performing below grade level (i.e. levels 1 & 2). Please describe what Levels 1 & 2 represent (i.e. 1 below standards, 2 approaching standards). Compare the last 2 years to see if there is improvement:

Level Standards

1 Below Standards

In 2012 the Mathematics results showed that about 40% of students were performing below grade level at levels one and two, either below standards or approaching basic standards. In 2011, slightly over 50% of all students were performing below grade level at either level ones or twos. Based on the data, it is evident that in 2012 the amount of students that were either below standards or approaching standards had decreased compared to 2011. In 2012 the amount of students meeting the standards and exceeding the standards increased by over 10% compared to 2011. This shows that overall the school made progress, as the amount of level ones and twos decreased and the amount of level threes and fours increased. This school, therefore, as its scores increase and decrease in the appropriate areas, is on track as it makes progress.

Manhattan College Dr. E. Kosky/Mr. D. Russo/Mrs. E. Gerace

EDUG 858/862/863 Fall 2013

Find the information on Moodle

Overview of School Performance in ELA Results Student Group

All Students Students w/ Disabilities Limited English Proficient

Total # Tested 249 45 49

2011-2012 % Levels 1-2 61.39 84.22 91.94

% Levels 3-4 38.61 15.78 8.06

Total # Tested 268 55 43

2010-2011 % Levels 1-2 67.74 92.49 90.33

% Levels 3-4 32.26 7.51 9.67

Analysis of ELA Data - Compare General Ed to Students with Disabilities levels on 1&2 and also indicate if there is a difference between the groups for past two years - Indicate if there was improvement : During the 2011-2012 school year, 61% of General Ed students performed below grade level receiving either a level one or a level two, whereas, 84% of Students with Disabilities performed below grade level. This shows that compared to the General Ed students a higher percentage of Students with Disabilities performed below grade levels. The majority of Students with Disabilities performed below grade level. During the 2010-2011 school year, 68% of General Ed students performed below grade level, whereas, nearly 93% of Students with Disabilities performed below grade level. Again this shows that a higher percentage of those Students with Disabilities performed below grade level. Both the General Ed students and the Students with Disabilities exhibited a positive trend as the percentage of students receiving levels three and four increased in 2012 compared to 2011.

Analysis of ELA Data - Compare the performance of the ELL students to the performance of all students. Please indicate in your report what Levels 1 & 2 indicate. Compare the last 2 years to see if there is improvement: In the 2010-2011 school year, about 91% of Limited English Proficient students performed below grade level receiving either a level one or a level two, whereas, about 68% of General Ed students were below level either approaching the basic standards or below standards. This shows that even though the majority of both groups performed below grade level a higher percentage of Limited English Proficient students received either a level one or two compared to the General Ed students. In the 2011- 2012 school year, a lower percentage received ones and twos as only 62% of General Ed students received these levels. Again a higher percentage of Limited English Proficient students were below grade level as about 92% percent either received a one or a two. However, unlike the General Ed students who portrayed a positive trend and improvement as the number of level ones and twos decreased between the 2010-2011 year, and the 2011 and 2012 year, the percentage of Limited English Proficient Students receiving level ones and twos increased.

Manhattan College Dr. E. Kosky/Mr. D. Russo/Mrs. E. Gerace

EDUG 858/862/863 Fall 2013

Find the information on Moodle Overview of School Performance in Math 2011-2012 % Levels % Levels Total # 1-2 3-4 Tested 41.48 58.52 270 64.36 35.64 55 62.85 37.15 45

Results Student Group

All Students Students w/ Disabilities Limited English Proficient

Total # Tested 254 45 54

2010-2011 % Levels 1-2 50.42 58.09 66.82

% Levels 3-4 49.58 41.91 33.18

Analysis of Math Data - Compare General Ed to Students with Disabilities levels 1&2 and also indicate if there is a difference between the groups for past two years - Indicate if there was improvement : In the 2010-2011 school year, about 58% of Students with Disabilities performed below grade level receiving either a level one or a level two, whereas, slightly over 50% of General Ed students were below level either approaching the basic standards or below standards. This shows that even though the majority of both groups performed below grade level a higher percentage of General Ed students received either a level one or two compared to the Students with Disabilities. In the 2011- 2012 school year, a lower percentage received ones and twos as only 41% of General Ed students received these levels. As shown in the 2010-2011 school year again a higher percentage of Students with Disabilities were below grade level as about 64% percent either received a one or a two. However, unlike the General Ed students who portrayed a positive trend and improvement as the number of level ones and twos decreased between the 2010-2011 year, and the 2011-2012 year, the percentage of Students with Disabilities receiving level ones and twos increased. The majority of the General Ed students were also above grade level in 2012 outperforming those Students with Disabilities. This shows that the General Ed. Students improved over time whereas, those Students with Disabilities did not.

Analysis of Math Data - Compare the performance of the ELL students to the performance of all students. Please indicate in your report what Levels 1 & 2 indicate. Compare the last 2 years to see if there is improvement:

During the 2011-2012 school year, 42% of General Ed students performed below grade level receiving either a level one or a level two, whereas, 63% of the ELL students performed below grade level. This shows that compared to the General Ed students a higher percentage of ELL students performed below grade level. The majority of ELL students performed below grade level. During the 2010-2011 school year, 50% of General Ed students performed below grade level, whereas, nearly 67% of ELL students performed below grade level. Again this shows that a higher percentage of those ELL students performed below grade level. Both the General Ed students and the ELL students exhibited a positive trend making improvement as the percentage of students receiving levels three and four increased in 2012 compared to 2011.

Manhattan College Dr. E. Kosky/Mr. D. Russo/Mrs. E. Gerace

EDUG 858/862/863 Fall 2013

Find the information on the School Report Card http://nystart.gov Demographics Year Eligible for Reduced Student Limited Free Lunch Price Lunch Stability English Proficient 2011 % # % # % # % # 81 440 9 47 75 23 127 2012 % # % # % # % # 81 461 9 50 75 26 145 Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:

Notes

In 2011 and 2012, the percentage of students eligible for either free lunch or reduced price lunch remained the same. 81% of all students were eligible for free lunch and 9% of students were eligible for reduced price lunch. Although the percentage remained the same the amount of students receiving either lunches increased. This is most likely a result of an increase in school enrollment in the 2012 school year. A higher percentage of Limited English Proficient students occurred in 2012, but again this could be due to the rise of Hispanic and Latino students as made evident in the data below. 75% of students returned in 2012 and 2011 from the previous year, meaning that 3/4ths of all students returned from year to year. Racial/Ethnic Origin
Year American Indian/ Alaska Native Black or African American Hispanic or Latino
Asian or Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander

White

2011

% # % # % # % 0 1 10 55 82 446 4 2012 % # % # % # % 0 2 8 48 84 475 5 Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:

# 24 # 28

% 3 % 3

# 16 # 15

In 2011 and 2012, the percent of American Indian/ Alaska Native and White students remained the same. There was a slight increase in Hispanic and Asian students in 2012 unlike the slight decrease of African American students. These demographics are largely influenced by the surrounding school community. The majority of students during both the 2011 and 2012 school years were Hispanic or Latino. Attendance & Suspensions Year Attendance % Suspensions Notes 2009-10 % # % # 94 0 1 2010-11 % # % # 93 0 1 Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years The attendance for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years stayed about the same. There was only a one percent decrease from 94% to 93% during the 2010-2011 school year compared to the 2009-2010 school year. These are both slightly below the city preferred 95% attendance rate. In both the 2009-2010 school year and the 2010-2011 school year there was only one suspension.
Manhattan College Dr. E. Kosky/Mr. D. Russo/Mrs. E. Gerace EDUG 858/862/863 Fall 2013

Annual Yearly Targets School Standing You will find this information on the School Report Card This information is on Moodle Good Standing ELA Math X Yes No Yes No ELA Math SINI
(School in Need of Improvement)

Corrective Action
(School Under Redesign)

Yes No Yes No

ELA Math

Yes No Yes No

Although the we cannot compare the students achievements from the NYS ELA and Math assessments this year due to the implement of the Common Core Learning Standards we can compare the schools performance to all of New York City to see if they are above or below the average performance: ELA New York City 26.4% Your School 14.4% New York City 29.6% Math Your School 25.5%

Analysis of ELA and Math Data for 2013 Please complete the above table and compare the % of students performing at grade level at your school to NYC (i.e. levels 3 & 4). Please describe how your school compares to NYC.

In 2013, New York State implemented the new state test based on the Common Core Learning Standards. As a result, 26.4% of students in New York City public schools performed at grade level receiving either a level three or a level four on the ELA test. 29.6% of students in New York City public schools performed at grade level on the Math assessment. In comparison to the rest of the schools and their students in NYC, 14.4%of the test taking students at P.S. 340 performed at grade level on the ELA state test. This percentage is slightly lower than the percentage of students in NYC. Compared to the rest of NYC, 25.5% of students at P.S. 340 performed at grade level which was only four percent less than the 29.6% of students in NYC performing at grade level. Based on the schools performance there is room for improvement. In order for the students in the school to perform equally with the rest of New York City, the school should focus on increasing their levels of threes and fours, fostering mores students to perform at grade level.

Manhattan College Dr. E. Kosky/Mr. D. Russo/Mrs. E. Gerace

EDUG 858/862/863 Fall 2013