Manhattan College

School Profile Analysis

Student Name: Anthony Lawlis
Name of School: P.S. 008 Issac Varian
Location District/County: District 10/Bronx
School Address: 3010 Briggs Avenue
Bronx, NY 10458
Telephone #:

718-584-3043

Student E-Mail: alawlis.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 for 4th grade
Year

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2013

Percent
# of
Students
Level
Standards

34.3%

Year

2014

Percent
# of
Students

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
45.4%

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
17.6%

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
2.8%

27.3%

98
2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)
43.0%

38
3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard
23.3%

6
4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards
6.4%

47

74

40

11

74
1
Below
Standards

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 the percentage of students of students that were performing below grade and were given a 1 was
34.3% and in 2014 it was 27.3%. In 2013 the percentage of students performing below grade level and
were given a level 2 was 45.4% and in 2014 the percentage was 43.0%. Level 1, which is Below
Standards, represents that a student has not met the standard score for proficiency in the fourth grade.
This number also indicates that a student is not meeting the Common Core English Language Arts
Learning Standards for fourth grade. Level, which is Meets Basic Standards (Approaching) means that
the student is exhibiting proficiency in some of the standards but is not proficient in all standards. The
score also shows that students are meeting a small portion of the Common Core English Language Arts
Learning Standards for the fourth grade.
Comparing the scores between 2013 and 2014 at level it indicates that there was an improvement in
students receiving a 1. In the year 2013 34.3% of the fourth grade students were given a 1. In
comparison to 2014 there was only 27.3% of the fourth grade that were given a 1. Overall it seems like
there is steady improvement occurring in the New York City public school classrooms. After looking at
this data and comparing the two years it makes you realize that the students performance is going to get
better but it will take a longer time than schools that are located in the suburbs.
Looking at the students who received scores of 2 in both 2013 and 2014 the number of students has
decreased. The percent of students who received a 2 in 2013 it was 45.4% and in 2014 it went down to
43.0%. This could mean two things. The first is that the student may have gone up a level and received a
3 or the student could have gone down a level to a 1. In the end, there wasnt a major change in the
percentage of students that received a 2 but there is still reason to start focusing in on these students to
ensure that they stay or improve to a 3.

Achievement Data
NYS Elementary Math
Students Results for 4th grade
Year

Level
Standards

1
Below
Standards

2
3
4
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
2013
Percent
30.8%
40.3%
22.2%
6.8%
# of Students
68
89
49
15
Year
Level
1
2
3
4
Standards
Below
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards
2014
Percent
24.4%
30.7%
22.7%
22.2%
# of Students
43
54
40
39
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 the percentage of students of students that were performing below grade in Math and
were given a 1 was 30.8% and in 2014 it was 24.4%. In 2013 the percentage of students
performing below grade level and were given a level 2 was 40.3% and in 2014 the percentage
was 30.7%. Level 1, which is Below Standards, represents that a student has not met the
standard score for proficiency in the fourth grade in Mathematics. This number also indicates
that a student is not meeting the Common Core Mathematics Learning Standards for fourth
grade. Level 2, which is Meets Basic Standards (Approaching) means that the student is
exhibiting proficiency in some of the mathematic standards but is not proficient in all
standards. The score also shows that students are meeting a small portion of the Common
Core Mathematics Learning Standards for the fourth grade.
Comparing the scores between 2013 and 2014 at level it indicates that there was an
improvement in students receiving a 1. In the year 2013 30.8% of the fourth grade students
were given a 1. In comparison to 2014 there was only 24.4% of the fourth grade that were
given a 1. This means that the number of students receiving the score of 1 has decreased since
2013. It is a good thing because it could possibly mean that students are scoring higher on the
state tests.
Looking at the students who received scores of 2 in both 2013 and 2014 the number of
students has decreased. The percent of students who received a 2 in 2013 it was 40.3% and in
2014 it went down to 30.7%. This could mean two things. The first is that the student may
have gone up a level and received a 3 or the student could have gone down a level to a 1. In
the end, there was a major change in the percentage of students that received a 2 but there is
still reason to start focusing in on these students to ensure that they stay or improve to a 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
598
125
47

2012-2013
% Levels
1-2
77.2%
95.2%
93.6%

% Levels
3-4
19.7%
4.8%
6.4%

Total #
Tested
523
124
28

2013-2014
% Levels
1-2
75.5%
95.9%
96.4%

% Levels
3-4
24.5%
4.0%
3.6%

Analysis of ELA Data - Compare All Students 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 you compare the level 1 in 2013 the percentage of all students at level 1 & 2 was 77.2% and in 2014 it
was 75.5%. The students with disabilities who were at level 1 & 2 had a percentage of 95.2% and in 2014 it
was 95.9%. This data shows that the students with disabilities were at a lower level compared to the rest of the
school. This is not a surprise but there was a slight increase in the percentage of students who did receive a 1 on
the state test. There is a large difference between the two different groups that are being compared in this data
analysis. Overall, I feel that there will always be a gap between the population and the students with disabilities
but the best we can do as teachers is to try to shorten the size of that gap.
There was improvement for all the students without disabilities. They went from being on levels 1 & 2 with a
percentage of 77.2%. In 2014 the students improved because there was only 75.5% students who were on levels
1 & 2. This shows that students have been moving up into the third level and are not sliding back.
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:
The performance of the ELL students in 2013 at levels 1 & 2 was at 93.6% compared to all the students, which
the percentage was at 77.2%. As you can see from the data that is shown in the table the achievement gap
between these two groups of students is quite large. Moving on to 2014 ELL students that were performing at
levels 1 & 2 was at a percentage of 96.4%. All the students in 2014 that were at the 1 & 2 levels were at a
percentage of 75.5%. Once again you are able to see the large gap that is standing in between the ELL students
and the rest of the school population.
Level 1, which is Below Standards, represents that all the students including the ELL students have not met the
standard score for proficiency in English Language Arts across grades 3-5. This number also indicates that
these students are not meeting the Common Core English Language Arts Learning Standards across grades 3-5.
Level 2, which is Meets Basic Standards (Approaching) means that the student is exhibiting proficiency in some
of the standards but is not proficient in all standards. The score also shows that students are meeting a small
portion of the Common Core English Language Arts Learning Standards for their respective grades.
There was improvement for all the students in the school that were not ELL. The amount of improvement that
occurred was not large but it still was good. All the students in this school who were scoring ones and twos
went from a percentage of 77.2% to 75.5%. Overall, progress has been made at this school.

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

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

Total #
Tested
609
127
176

Overview of School Performance in Math

2012-2013
% Levels
% Levels
Total #
1-2
3-4
Tested
71%
29.1%
541
89.8%
10.2%
124
86.9%
13.1%
127

2013-2014
% Levels
1-2
67.4%
86.3%
85.9%

% Levels
3-4
32.5%
13.7%
14.2%

Analysis of Math Data - Compare all the students 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:
The percentage of all students at level 1 & 2 in 2013 was 71% and in 2014 it was 67.4%. The students with
disabilities who were at level 1 & 2 had a percentage of 89.8% and in 2014 it was 86.3%. This data shows that
the students with disabilities were at a lower level compared to the rest of the school. There is a large difference
between the two different groups that are being compared in this data analysis. Overall, I feel that there will
always be a gap between the population and the students with disabilities but the best we can do as teachers is to
try to shorten the size of that gap.
There was improvement for all the students without disabilities. They went from being on levels 1 & 2 with a
percentage of 89.8%. In 2014 the students improved because there was only 86.3% students who were on levels
1 & 2. This shows that students have been moving up into the third level and are not sliding back.
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:
The performance of the ELL students in 2013 at levels 1 & 2 was at 86.9% compared to all the students, which
the percentage was at 71%. As you can see from the data that is shown in the table the achievement gap
between these two groups of students is quite large. Moving on to 2014 ELL students that were performing at
levels 1 & 2 was at a percentage of 85.9%. All the students in 2014 that were at the 1 & 2 levels were at a
percentage of 67.4%. Once again you are able to see the large gap that is standing in between the ELL students
and the rest of the school population. Although it is good to note that both groups percentages of scoring at
levels 1 & 2 have gone down.
Level 1, which is Below Standards, represents that all the students including the ELL students have not met the
standard score for proficiency in Mathematics across grades 3-5. This number also indicates that these students
are not meeting the Common Core English Mathematics Learning Standards across grades 3-5. Level 2, which
is Meets Basic Standards (Approaching) means that the student is exhibiting proficiency in some of the
standards but is not proficient in all standards. The score also shows that students are meeting a small portion of
the Common Core Mathematics Learning Standards for their respective grades.
There was improvement for ELL students who went from 86.9% to 85.9%, which is positive. The amount of
improvement that occurred was not large but it still was good. All the students in this school who were scoring
ones and twos went from a percentage of 71% to 67.4%. Overall, progress has been made at this school.
5

Find the information on the School Report Card

www.nysed.gov
Year

Eligible for
Free Lunch

Demographics
Reduced
Student
Price Lunch
Stability

Limited
English
Proficient
2011
%
#
%
#
Not
%
#
83
1,005 6
69 Available
29
349
2012
%
#
%
#
Not
%
#
82
1,005 5
66 Available
30
368
Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:

Notes

There was a change in the percentage of students who were eligible for free lunch,
however, there was not a change in the number of students who receiving it. There was a
change in the percentage of students who received reduced price lunch it went from 6% to
5% and there was a change in the number of students that went from 69 to 66. The amount
of students in the school who were Limited English Proficient increased in percentage. It
went from 29% to 30%, which is not drastic but is still important to note. The number of
students that were Limited English Proficient increased as well from 349 to 368.
Racial/Ethnic Origin
Year

American
Indian/ Alaska
Native

Black or
African
American

Hispanic or
Latino

2011

Asian or Native
Hawaiian/ Other
Pacific Islander

%
#
%
#
%
# %
0
3
11
131 73
887 6
2012
%
#
%
#
%
# %
0
4
11
133 73
888 7
Analysis of Data Indicate any or no changes over the two years:

#
78
#
81

White

%
9
%
9

#
109
#
113

The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native was at 0% over the course of two years.
The number of students in the school went from 3 to 4. The percentage of African
Americans at the school was at 11% for both years and the number of students at the school
increased from 131 to 133. The percentage of Hispanic students stayed the same at 73%
but the number of students increased from 887 to 888. The Asian or Native Hawaiian
group increased from 6% to 7% and the number of students went up from 78 to 81. The
last group was white people who remained the same at 9% but increased in number from
109 to 113.

Attendance & Suspensions

6

Year
2011-12

Attendance %
%92

% 1

2012-13

% 92

% 1

Suspensions
#16

Notes

#9

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

The percentage for attendance remained the same over the two-year period at 92%. The
amount of suspensions remained at 1% and the number decreased from 16 to 9.