Manhattan College

School Profile Analysis

Student Name: Alexa DAuria
Name of School: P.S 086 Kingsbridge Heights
Location District/County: District 10
School Address: 2756 Reservoir Avenue
Bronx, NY 10468
Telephone #: 718-584-5585
Student E-Mail: adauria.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.

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

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2013
215

Percent
# of
Students
Level
Standards

34.4
74

Year

2014
200

Percent
# of
Students

1
Below
Standards
39.5
79

4th Grade
2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
37.2
80

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
22.8
49

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
5.6
12

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
33
66

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
17.5
35

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
10
20

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:
In 2013, 71.6% of the students scored below grade level (levels 1 and 2). Levels 1 and 2 represent
students not meeting state ELA standards. Although the number of students decreased between 2013 and
2014, the number of students who performed below standards increased. However, the number of students
in level 2 decreased because more students showed improved proficiency, and therefore, moved into level
3. Similarly, the number of students in level 3 decreased because more students showed improved
proficiency by moving from level 3 to level 4.

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

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2
3
4
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
2013
Percent
27.3
27.7
38.2
6.8
220
# of Students
60
61
84
15
Year
Level
1
2
3
4
Standards
Below
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
2014
Percent
30.1
24.9
22
23
209
# of Students
63
52
46
48
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, 55% of the 4th grade students scored below grade level (levels 1 and 2). Levels 1 and
2 represent students who did not meet state math standards. Although the number of students
decreased from 2013 and 2014, the number of students who performed below standards
increased. However, the number of students in level 2 decreased because more students
showed improved proficiency, and therefore, moved into level 3. Similarly, the number of
students in level 3 decreased because more students showed improved proficiency by moving
from level 3 to level 4.

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
215
36
134

2012-2013
% Levels
1-2
71.6
97.2
60.4

% Levels
3-4
28.4
2.8
39.6

Total #
Tested
200
39
129

2013-2014
% Levels
1-2
72.5
97.4
60.5

% Levels
3-4
27.5
2.6
39.5

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 :
In general, the students with disabilities performed significantly lower than students in general education. This
is true for both years. Over 97% of the students with disabilities scored in levels 1 and 2 for both years, thus
showing no improvement. The number of students in general education decreased while the number of students
with disabilities increased.

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:
The performance of the ELL students compared to the performance of all students follows a similar pattern.
Both populations had more students scoring in levels 1 and 2 than in levels 3 and 4. This pattern was the same
from both years. There was no improvement. This indicates that the majority of students have not met state ELA
standards because they scored in levels 1 and 2.

Find the information on the School Quality Guide

4

Demographics
IEP
Limited
English
Proficient
2013
82%
19%
32%
2014
82%
18%
31%
Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:
Year

Eligible for
Free Lunch

Notes

There was a very slight (1%) decrease in the number of students with IEPs and those who
are considered Limited English Proficient. The percentage of students eligible for free
lunch remains the same.
% of Racial/Ethnic Origin
Year

American
Indian/ Alaska
Native

Black or
African
American

Hispanic or
Latino

Asian or Native
Hawaiian/ Other
Pacific Islander

2012/13
0
10
84
2013/14
0
10
85
Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:

4
4

White

2
1

Over the two years, there was no change in the following populations: American
Indian/Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander. There was a 1% increase in the number of Hispanic or Latino students.
There was a 1% decrease in the number of White students.

Reflect on the analysis of the Quality Review in the School Quality Guide. Connect your experiences at this
school to the Areas of Celebration and Areas of Focus. Is your perception the same as the report? Provide
specific qualitative evidence:
Although the School Quality Guide for P.S 86 does not include a Quality Review section, I was able to
determine the schools areas of celebration and area of focus using the Summary of Section Ratings page. There
are many areas of celebration in which the school exceeds their target including student progress, student
achievement, and school environment. The percent of peer range was, for the most part, greater than the percent
of the city range in regards to students progress, as well as for student achievement and school environment.
The school received a total of 73.9 points for student progress, which is 10.7 points above the cutoff for
exceeding the target. P.S 86 scored 6.5 more points than the minimum for exceeding the target in the area of
student achievement. Furthermore, the school scored 2.5 points greater than the minimum for exceeding the
target in school environment.
I am very surprised that this school exceeds the target in student progress and achievement because the data
from the math and ELA scores for fourth graders indicates that the majority of students scored within levels 1
and 2 for two consecutive years. The Additional Information page in the School Quality Guide suggests that
Grades 3 and 5 also have percentages less than 45 of students who scored in levels 3 and 4 on the math state test
and less than 26 on the ELA state exam. Interestingly, 84% of fourth grade students scored in either level 3 or 4
on the Science state test in 2013-2014.
The student progress area consists of subareas including: English Median Adjusted Growth Percentile, English
Median Adjusted Growth Percentile, English - Average Student Proficiency. All of these subareas have declined
from 2013 to 2014. The school should focus on improving these specific areas. Furthermore, the attendance
results, which are under the area of school environment, have decreased since 2012. The school is just meeting
the target for peers and city wide.
There is only one are of focus, which is closing the achievement gap. The school scored in meeting the target
for this area. The schools results in English for self contained, ICT, and SETSS classes have not improved
much since the 2011-2012 school year. The percent of ELLs who scored in the 75th percentile or higher in
English has decreased from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014, but increased in math.

Reflect on the data within the Learning Survey (found on the school website) look closely at the Teacher data.
Connect your experiences at this school to the data. Is your perception the same as the report? Provide specific
qualitative evidence:
I student taught at P.S 86 Kingsbridge Heights from January to May 2014. Previously, I was able to observe
three different classrooms during my undergraduate studies. When I read the teacher data from the learning
survey I was able to compare my experiences with those of the teachers, agreeing sometimes and disagreeing
others.
One question asked of the teachers was whether the school educates students with disabilities in the appropriate
least restrictive environment. 92% of the teachers either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. From my
perspective, I agree with this statement. Although there were some self-contained classes in the school, most
students were included in regular classrooms or inclusion settings.
Teachers were asked whether they use assessments relevant to daily instruction. 92% of the teachers either
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. From my experience in the classroom, I agree with this practice,
however, 75% of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that they spent too much time administering
assessments, which applies to state testing. I agree with the teachers because a lot of time was spent
administering practice and actual math and ELA assessments. I observed that when a teacher administered a
practice test and a particular subject had not been taught, the teacher had to prepare a quick mini-lesson so that
the students could answer those questions on the test.
When teachers were asked whether students are harassed or bullied, 73% of the teachers strongly disagreed with
this statement. This was not my experience. In the second grade classroom where I was student teaching, the
girls verbally harassed each other. Some students sent notes to each other saying things like I dont like you.
You are not a nice person. You are not my friend.
88% of teachers strongly agreed that students with disabilities are included in all school activities. In theory, all
students would be included in school activities such as lunch with their peers and field trips. However,
participation in these activities for students with disabilities was sometimes used as a consequence for
inappropriate behavior. For example, students would not be permitted to eat in the lunchroom with their peers or
would not be allowed to go on the field trip.
Teachers were asked whether their professional development experiences had helped them to meaningfully use
technology in the classroom. 66% of the teachers strongly agreed with this statement. I observed that some
classrooms had SMARTboards, but most of them did not work. There were two computers in each classroom,
but from what I observed they were rarely used. Laptops were available to be signed out, but they were not
often used. The only time I saw these laptops used was with second graders for a math assessment and a science
project, and with fifth graders for a history research project.
Teachers were asked if they would recommend this school. From 2013 to 2014, the percentage declined from
80% to 75%. From my experience, I would not recommend this school. Although I thought that the teachers
were capable, I saw that there were too many students in each class. I dont think that teachers were treated
well. For example, students with significant behavior problems were usually given to new teachers. My
understanding is that in an inclusion classroom 60% of the students should be general education and 40% of the
students should have an IEP. This school did not follow these regulations. There were many more students with
IEPs in classrooms. Even though 75% of the teachers in 2014 said they would recommend the school, only 63%
of them agreed that they look forward coming to work each day. I often overheard teachers saying that they
couldnt wait to go home and relax because the students were emotionally draining.
7

Look at page 11 in the School Quality Guide identify one sub-group that is not making progress. Ask your
cooperating teacher what interventions exist at that school for this sub-group (who, when, what). Make
recommendation for this sub-group.
In the area of English, students who were in Integrated Co-Teaching Classes did not make any progress over
three school years. Their performance declined so much that no students scored a 3 or 4 in the 2012-2013 or
2013-2014 school years. In order to help these students make progress, there are many interventions that could
be implemented to help this population.
In P.S 86, teachers tried to implement sustained silent reading, but did not do this on a consistent basis because
they felt pressured to teach other content material. One of the teachers consistently used guided reading
activities to help students improve their reading. Some teachers used read alouds that were common core based,
but these were not always on students reading levels. In the area of writing, many of the teachers used graphic
organizer to help students organize ideas. Writing activities were often scaffolded and modeled.
It is very difficult to make recommendations in a school that doesnt have a large budget to invest in reading
materials. Additionally, the students in this school come from very disadvantaged homes that are often poor
print environments. Nevertheless, my recommendations would be as follows:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)

I would devote many more hours during the school day to reading and reading instruction.
I would partner with the school librarian to find books that each student in the class could read.
I would arrange for sustained silent reading time every day in the classroom.
I would make use of the computers in the classrooms to provide motivational and interactive online
reading experiences.
5.) I would have students work in reading groups to practice their reading skills and I would vary the way
the groups were formed, such as based on reading level and interest.
6.) I would make sure that there are guided reading activities in the classroom that focus on decoding, word
recognition, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension.
7.) I would conduct shared readings where the teacher works on reading fluency.
8.) I would have students draw pictures about the story that they are reading to improve their reading
comprehension skills.
9.) I would modify some reading selections to help the struggling reads have more successful reading
experiences.
10.) I would provide choice of writing responses for students.
11.) I would provide targeted writing instruction.
12.) I would implement peer editing in the classroom.
13.) I would use the computer so students could type their writing.
14.) If the school computers or other technology devices had voice to text software, I would use that with the
struggling writers.
15.) If there was not technology available, I would use a tape recorder to record students ideas so that the
writing process did not interrupt the fluency of their thoughts.