1

Manhattan College
School Profile Analysis
Student Name:

Dayna Rodriguez

Name of School:

P.S. 86

Location District/County

Kingsbridge Heights (District 10)

School Address:

______________________________________
____________________________________________

School Telephone #:

_____________________________________________________

Student E-Mail:

drodriguez03@gmail.com

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.

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

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2013
207

Percent
# of
Students
Level
Standards

47.8%
99

Year

2014
223

Percent
# of
Students

1
Below
Standards
43%
96

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
39.1%
81

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
12.6%
26

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
0.5%
1

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
38.6%
86

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
17%
38

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
1.3%
3

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:
I chose to analyze the 3rd grade at P.S. 86 in Kingsbridge Heights. In 2014, 43% of all 3rd grade students at
the school scored at Level 1 and 38.6% of students scored at Level 2. In 2013, 47.8% of 3rd grade students
at the school scored at Level 1 and 39.1% scored at Level 2. In 2012, 22% of all 3rd grade students scored
at Level 1 and 32% of students scored at Level 2.
According to the EngageNY website, students who score at Level 1 on the ELA state assessments do not
meet grade level academic expectations in ELA. These students are well below the level of proficiency in
the common core learning standards for English Language Arts/Literacy for their grade level.
Furthermore, the EngageNY website states that students who score at Level 2 on the ELA state
assessments are partially proficient in ELA but they do not meet all common core learning standards
expectations for their grade level. Interestingly enough, EngageNY states that students who score at Level
2 on the ELA state assessment are on track to meet New York State requirements for high school
graduation even though these students are only partially proficient in the common core learning standards
for their grade level.
Third grade students at P.S. 86 showed improvement between 2013 and 2014 on the ELA state
assessment. In 2013, 86.9% of students in the 3rd grade scored at Level 1 and Level 2 and 13.1% of
students scored at Level 3 and Level 4. In 2014, 81.6% of students scored at Level 1 and Level 2 and
18.3% of students scored at Level 3 and Level 4. Furthermore between 2013 and 2014, students receiving
a score at Level 1 decreased by 4.7% and students receiving a score at Level 2 decreased by 0.5%. In
addition in 2014, students who obtained a score at Level 3 increased by 4.4% as compared to the year
2

3
2013. Likewise in 2014, students who obtained a score at Level 4 increased by 0.8% in comparison to
2013. Although 3rd grade students at the school showed improvement between the years 2013 and 2014,
they were unable to achieve the scores that they received on the ELA state assessments in 2012. In 2012,
54% of 3rd grade students at the school scored at Level 1 and Level 2 and 46% of the students scored at
Level 3 and Level 4.

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

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2013
212
Year

Percent
# of Students
Level
Standards

41%
87
1
Below
Standards

2014
233

Percent
# of Students

23.6%
55

2
3
4
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
35.8%
12.3%
10.8%
76
26
23
2
3
4
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
39.5%
25.3%
11.6%
92
59
27

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:
I chose to analyze the 3rd grade at P.S. 86 in Kingsbridge Heights. In 2014, 23.6% of all 3rd
grade students at the school scored at Level 1 and 39.5% of students scored at Level 2. In
2013, 41% of 3rd grade students at the school scored at Level 1 and 35.8% scored at Level 2.
In 2012, 6% of all 3rd grade students scored at Level 1 and 35% of students scored at Level 2.
According to the EngageNY website, students who score at Level 1 on the mathematics state
assessments do not meet grade level academic expectations in math. These students are well
below the level of proficiency in the common core learning standards for mathematics for
their grade level. Furthermore, the EngageNY website states that students who score at Level
2 on the mathematics state assessments are partially proficient but they do not meet all
common core learning standards expectations for their grade level. Interestingly enough,
EngageNY states that students who score at Level 2 on the mathematics state assessment are
on track to meet New York State requirements for high school graduation even though these
students are only partially proficient in the common core math learning standards for their
grade level.
Third grade students at P.S. 86 showed a marked improvement between 2013 and 2014 on the
mathematics state assessment. In 2013, 76.8% of students in the 3rd grade scored at Level 1
and Level 2 and 23.1% of students scored at Level 3 and Level 4. In 2014, 63.1% of students
scored at Level 1 and Level 2 and 36.9% of students scored at Level 3 and Level 4.
Furthermore, between 2013 and 2014 the percentages of students receiving a score at Level 1
also decreased dramatically by 17.4%. However, students receiving a score at Level 2 between
2013 and 2014 increased slightly by 3.7%. In 2014, students obtaining a score at Level 3
4

5
increased by 12.3 % in comparison to 2013. Furthermore, students obtaining a score at Level
4 increased by 0.8% in 2014 as compared to 2013. Although 3rd grade students at the school
showed improvement between the years 2013 and 2014, they were unable to achieve the
scores that they received on the 2012 mathematics state assessments. In 2012, 41% of 3rd
grade students at the school scored at Level 1 and Level 2 and 59% of students scored at Level
3 and Level 4.

6
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
207
33
64

2012-2013
% Levels
1-2
86.9%
100%
100%

% Levels
3-4
13.1%
0%
0%

Total #
Tested
223
30
62

2013-2014
% Levels
1-2
81.6%
90%
95.2%

% Levels
3-4
18.3%
10%
4.8%

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:
When I compared students with disabilities to all students in 2012-2013, I noticed that 13.1% more students
with disabilities scored at Level 1 and Level 2. I also realized that no student with disabilities scored at Level 3
and Level 4 in 2012-2013 while 13.1% of all students scored at Level 3 and Level 4 in 2012-2013 When I
compared scores of students with disabilities with scores of students without disabilities in 2012-2013, the
difference in scores was even greater. While 39.7% of students without disabilities scored at Level 1 in 20122013, 90.9% of students with disabilities scored at Level 1 in 2012-2013. In 2013-2014, fewer students with
disabilities scored at Level 1 than in 2012-2013, 90.7% as compared to 76.7%, respectively. In addition, 10% of
students with disabilities were able to obtain a score at Level 3 in 2013-2014 while no student with disabilities
was able to achieve a score at Level 3 in 2012-2013. In fact, students with disabilities where able to increase
their percentages at Level 3 by 10% in 2013-2014 while all students increased their percentages at Level 3 and
Level 4 by only 5.2% in 2013-2014.
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:
A score at Level 1 indicates that the student do not meet the common core ELA learning standards expectations
for their grade level. A score at Level 2 indicates that the student is partially proficient in ELA but does not all
the requirements of the common core learning standards for their grade level.
When I compared ELL students with all students in 2012-2013, I realized that 100% of ELL students scored at
Level 1 and Level 2 as compared to the 86.9% of all students. Therefore, 13.1% more ELLs scored at Level 1
and Level 2 than all students in 2012-2013. I also realized that no student who was an ELL in 2012-2013 was
able to achieve a score at Level 3 and Level 4 while 13.1% of all students scored at Level 3 and Level 4 in
2012-2013. Furthermore in 2012-2013, 78.1% of ELLs scored at Level 1 as compared to 47.8% of all students
and 37% of English proficient students. In 2013-2014, ELLs increased their scores at Level 3 by 4.8% but they
did not outpace all students in terms of relative achievement since all students increased their percentages at
Level 3 and Level 4 by 5.2%.

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

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

Total #
Tested
212
33
69

Overview of School Performance in Math

2012-2013
% Levels
% Levels
Total #
1-2
3-4
Tested
76.8%
23.1%
233
93.9%
6.1%
30
95.6%
4.3%
73

2013-2014
% Levels
1-2
63.1%
90%
83.5%

% Levels
3-4
36.9%
10%
16.4%

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 :
When I compared students with disabilities to all students in 2012-2013, I noticed that 17.1% more students
with disabilities scored at Level 1 and Level 2 than all students. I realized that 17% fewer students with
disabilities were able to achieve a score at Level 3 and Level 4 as compared to all students in 2012-2013. When
I compared students with disabilities to students without disabilities in 2012-2013 the difference in scores was
even greater. In 2012-2013, 72.7% of students with disabilities scored at Level 1 while 35.2% of students
without disabilities scored at Level 1 in that school year. In 2013-2014, students with disabilities improved their
scores. However, in terms of relative achievement all students outpaced students with disabilities. In that year
students with disabilities raised their percentages at Level 3 and Level 4 by 3.9% as compared to all students
who raised their percentages at Level 3 and 4 by 13.8%.
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:
A score at Level 1 indicates that the student do not meet the common core mathematics learning standards
expectations for their grade level. A score at Level 2 indicates that the student is partially proficient in math but
does not all the requirements of the common core learning standards for their grade level.
When I compared ELLs scores to all students in 2012-2013, I realized that 18.8% more ELLs scored at Level 1
and Level 2 than all students. In addition, 18.8% fewer ELLs were able to obtain a score at Level 3 and Level 4
in comparison to all students. When I compared test score percentages between ELLs and English Proficient
students in 2012-2013 the difference was even greater. In 2012-2013, 73.9% of ELLs scored at Level 1 as
compared to 23.6 for English proficient students. In 2013-2014, ELLs improved their percentages at Level 3
and Level by 12.1% but were unable to outpace all students in terms of relative achievement since all students
increased their percentages by 13.8% at Level 3 and Level 4.

Find the information on the School Report Card

www.nysed.gov

2011

77%
#1,313

Demographics
Reduced
Limited
Price Lunch
English
Proficient
6%
31%
#103
#523

2012

63%
#976

6%
#93

Year

Eligible for
Free Lunch

Notes

32%
#495

Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:

In 2012, 14% fewer students were eligible for a free lunch than in 2011.
In 2012, the percentage of limited English proficient students increased by 1% from 2011
although the number of limited English proficient students decreased by 28 students.
The percentage of students who received a reduced price lunch remained the same in 2012
in comparison to 2011 but the number of students who received a free lunch decreased by
10 students.

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%
#0

12%
#199

83%
#1,411

4%
#64

2%
#30

2012

0%
#1

10%
#156

84%
#1,311

4%
#61

2%
#27

Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:

In 2012, the percentage and number of African American students decreased from 2011.
In 2012, the percentage of Hispanic students rose by 1%, although the number of Hispanic
students decreased by 100 students from 2011.
The percentages of American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian or Native Hawaiian/ Other
Pacific Islander, and white in the school remained the same in 2012 as compared to 2011.
8

Year
2011-12

Attendance & Suspensions

Attendance %
Suspensions
92%
#
0%
#0

2012-13

94%

0%

Notes

#0

Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years

In school year 2012-2013, the annual attendance rate increased by 2% in comparison to
2011-2012.
No students were suspended in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.