Manhattan College

School Profile Analysis
Student Name:

_Lisa Izzo____________________________

Name of School: ___PS 7__________________________________
Location District/County___10/Kingsbridge_______________________
School Address:

_3201_Kingsbridge Ave.__________________
________Bronx, NY 10463_____________________

Telephone #:

___(718) 796-8695______________________________

Student E-Mail:

____Lizzo.student@manhattan.edu______________________

If your school is not located in the Bronx you will need to go to the NYSED.gov website and find your schools
report card.
New York City website is http://schools.nyc.gov.

1

Achievement Data
NYS Elementary English Language Arts
Students Results
Please pick one grade to analyze
Grade 4
Year

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2013

Percent
# of
Students
Level
Standards

29.2 %
42

Year

2014

Percent
# of
Students

1
Below
Standards
23.9%
34

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
38.9%
56

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
22.9%
33

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
9.0%
13

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
23.9%
34

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
27.5%
39

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
24.6%
35

Analysis of ELA Data – Please indicate the % of students performing below grade level (i.e. levels 1 &
2). Please describe what Levels 1 & 2 represents (i.e. 1 below standards, 2 approaching standards).
Compare the last 2 years to see if there is improvement:
There are 29.2% of students on level 1 and 38.9% on level 2 in 2013. In 2014, 23.9% were on level 1
and 2. For 2013, the students on levels 1 and 2 make up more than half of the students that took the
English Language Arts test. This means that in 2013, this school consisted of more students that were
below grade and approaching grade, than meeting or exceeding proficiency. However, in 2014, there were
more students that were on levels 3 and 4, than on levels 1 and 2. This means that the school overall was
on a higher academic achievement level.
Looking at the last two years, there has been improvement on the ELA exam. In 2013, 42 students were
below grade level and received a 1 on the test. In 2014, the number of students who received a 1 dropped
to 34 students, which shows improvement. There was also improvement with the students who received a
2, 3, or 4. 22 less students in 2014 received a 2. In 2013, 33 students were on level 3 and that increased in
2013 to 39 students. There was also great improvement for students who received a 4. In 2013, there were
only 13 students who exceeded proficiency. This number rose to 35 in 2014, showing great improvement
over the next year.

2

Achievement Data
NYS Elementary Math
Students Results
Please pick one grade to analyze
Grade 4
Year

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2
3
4
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
2013
Percent
19.9%
30.8%
27.4%
21.9%
# of Students
29
45
40
32
Year
Level
1
2
3
4
Standards
Below
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
2014
Percent
7.6%
34.7%
14.6%
43.1%
# of Students
11
50
21
62
Analysis of Math Data – Please indicate the % of students performing below grade level (i.e.
levels 1 & 2). Please describe what Levels 1 & 2 represents (i.e. 1 below standards, 2
approaching standards). Compare the last 2 years to see if there is improvement:
In 2013, there were 19.9% of students on level 1 and 30.8% on level 2. In 2014, 7.6% were
on level 1 and 34.7% on level 2. In 2013, the students on levels 1 and 2 make up 50% of
students that took the Math test, which shows that half the school was below grade level or
approaching grade level. Yet in 2014, the students on levels 1 and 2 only make up 42.3 % of
the school, which shows improvement form 2013 to 2014.
There was significant improvement between 2013 and 2014. In 2013, 29 students received a
1, yet, this number dropped to 11 in 2014. However more students received a 2 in 2014, when
compared to 2013, as well as less students receiving a 3. Even though there was a drop in
meeting proficiency from 2013-2014, there was significant improvement on level 4. 62
students received a 4 in 2014, compared to the 32 students in 2013. 30 more students exceeded
proficiency in 2014.

3

Find Information on Excel Spreadsheets (look at tabs on bottom)
Overview of School Performance in ELA
Results
Student Group
All Students
Students w/ Disabilities
Limited English
Proficient

Total #
Tested
144
19
39

2012-2013
% Levels
1-2
29.2-38.9 %
73.7-26.3 %
56.4-33.3%

% Levels
3-4
22.9-9.0 %
0.0-0.0 %
7.7-2.6%

Total #
Tested
142
17
43

2013-2014
% Levels
1-2
23.9-23.9 %
88.2-11.8%
51.2-27.9%

% Levels
3-4
27.5-24.6 %
0.0-0.0%
20.9-0.0%

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:
There are fewer General Ed students on levels 1 and 2 compared to Students with Disabilities on levels 1 and
2. In 2013, there was 73.7% of Students with Disabilities on level 1 and 26.3% on level 2. These two
percentages created the total for the 2012-2013 year. No Student with Disabilities received a 3 or 4 in 20122013. In 2014, 88.2 % of Students with Disabilities received a 1 and 11.8% received a 2. Once again no students
received a 3 or 4 on the ELA exam. The main difference between General Ed and Students with Disabilities is
that Students with Disabilities are receiving all 1s and 2s on this test for both 2013 and 2014.
From 2013-2014 there was no improvement seen by Students with Disabilities. The percentage of students
that received a 1 increased in 2014, going from 73.7% to 88.2%.

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 indicates. Compare the last 2 years to see if there is improvement:
In 2013, there were 39 ELL students out of a total 144 students in the school. In 2013, 56.4% received a 1 and
33.3% received a two, make up way more than half of the students being tested, which means that a majority of
students failed the test. Only 7.7% received a 3, while 2.6% received a 4. In 2014, out of 142 students, 43 were
ELL students. 51.2% received a 1 and 27.9% received a 2, once again making up more than half of the students
being tested and having more than half the students fail the ELA test.
When the last two years are compared, it is seen that there was improvement for the ELL students. In 2013,
7.7% received a 3, yet this increased to 20.9% of students in 2014. However, in 2013 2.6% of ELL students
received a 4 and 0.0% received a 4 in 2014, this shows that there was not improvement for ELL students who
exceeded proficiency. Yet, there was improvement for all students in 2013-2014. In 2013, 22.9% received a 3,
increasing to 27.5% in 2014. In 2013, 9.0% received a 4, improving to 24.6% in 2014.

4

Find Information on Excel Spreadsheets (look at tabs on bottom)

Results
Student Group
All Students
Students w/ Disabilities
Limited English
Proficient

Total #
Tested
146
19
41

Overview of School Performance in Math
2012-2013
% Levels
% Levels
Total #
1-2
3-4
Tested
19.9-30.8%
27.4-21.9%
144
57.9-21.1%
15.8-5.3%
18
39.0-41.5%
9.8-9.8%
45

2013-2014
% Levels
1-2
7.6-34.7%
27.2-61.1%
13.3-53.5%

% Levels
3-4
14.6-43.1%
16.7-0.0%
20.0-13.3%

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:
There are fewer General Ed students on levels 1 and 2 than Students with Disabilities. In 2013, there were
57.9% of students that received a 1 on the test, which alone is more than half of the students failing the Math
test. There were also 21.1% of Students with Disabilities that received a 2 on the test, meaning they were
approaching grade level. In 2014, there were more Students with Disabilities on grade level, receiving a 3,
going from 15.8% in 2013 to 16.7% in 2014. The main difference between General Ed and Students with
Disabilities is that there are more Students with Disabilities receiving either a 1 or a 2. In 2014, 0.0% of
Students with Disabilities received a 4 on the test, where as about 25% of General Ed students in 2014 received
a 4.
The biggest improvement seen between 2013 and 2014 for Students with Disabilities was the percentage of
students who received a 1 or 2 on the test. In 2013, 57.9% of students received a 1, however this number
dropped to 27.2% in 2014. The number of students receiving a 2 improved from 21.1% in 2013 to 61.1% in
2014. There was a 30% increase of students who were approaching grade level.
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 indicates. Compare the last 2 years to see if there is
improvement:
In 2013 there were 41 students out of 146 that were ELL, compared to 45 out of 144 students in 2014. In 2013,
39.0% of ELL students received a 1, while 41.5% received a 2. This combined is well over half of the ELL
students for 2013. In 2014, 13.3% received a 1 and 53.5% received a 2, still more than half of the population of
ELL students failing the test.
Improvement is seen in the ELL students between 2013 and 2014. In 2013 there were 39.0% of students that
received a 1, this dropped to 13.3% in 2014. There was also improvement for ELL students in 2014. 20.0% of
ELL students in 2014 received a 3, compared to the 9.8% in 2013. The ELL students receiving a 4 also
improved in 2014, increasing from 9.8% in 2013 to 13.3% in 2014.
5

Find the information on the School Report Card
www.nysed.gov
Eligible for
Free Lunch

Demographics
Reduced
Student
Price Lunch
Stability

2011

78%

#444

8%

#47

%

2012

77%

#477

8%

#51

13%

Year

#

Limited
English
Proficient
25% #142

#83 23%

Notes

#142

Analysis of Data –Indicate any or no changes over the two years:
The biggest change seen between 2011 and 2012 is the number of students eligible for
free lunch. The number rose from 444 students in 2011 to 477 students in 2012. The
number of students who have limited English proficiency stayed the same from 2011-2012.
Racial/Ethnic Origin
Year

American
Indian/ Alaska
Native

Black or
African
American

Hispanic or
Latino

Asian or Native
Hawaiian/ Other
Pacific Islander

White

2011

1%

#4

9%

#53

73%

#416 7%

#42 9%

#50

2012

1%

#8

8%

#47

75%

#463 7%

#43 8%

#50

Analysis of Data – Indicate any or no changes over the two years:
The biggest change seen between 2011 and 2012 is the number of Hispanic or Latino
students. The number rose from 416 in 2011 to 463 in 2012, adding 47 more Hispanic or
Latino students to the school. The other biggest change was seen in Black or African
American students, decreasing from 53 students in 2011 to 47 in 2012.

Year
2011-12

Attendance & Suspensions
Attendance %
Suspensions
95%
0%
#2

2012-13

96%

0%

Notes

#1

Analysis of Data – Indicate any or no changes over the two years
Over the two years, the only change that was made was that there was one less suspension
in 2013 when compared to 2012.

6