Manhattan College

School Profile Analysis

Student Name:

Lauren Fox

Name of School: P.S. 37

Location District/County 10
School Address:

360 West 230 Street

Bronx, NY 10463

Telephone #:
Student E-Mail:

(718) 796-0360
lfox.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

2013

Percent
# of Students

Year

Level
Standards

2014

Percent
# of Students

1
Below
Standards

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards

38.1

46.4

13.1

2.4

32

39

11

1
Below
Standards

2
Meets Basic
Standards
(Approaching)

3
Meets
Proficiency
Standard

4
Exceeds
Proficiency
Standards

39.1

50.7

8.7

1.4

27

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:
In 2013, the percentage of students performing below grade level was 84.5%. In 2014, the percentage of
students performing below grade level was 89.8%. From 2012 to 2013 the percent of students who
received a score of 1 increased by 1% where as the percent of students who received a score of 2 increased
by 4.3%. From 2012-2013, the percent of students who received a score of 3 decreased by 4.4% and the
percent of students who received a score of 4 decreased by 1%.
One possible explanation for the increase in the percent of students performing below grade level could be
the new curriculum. P.S. 37 switched to Expeditionary as the new curriculum for reading and writing in
the middle of the school year 2012-2013. Expeditionary was first used for the full year in 2013-2014.
Thus, students had to adjust to using this new curriculum and were most likely not used to the new
curriculum when they were tested. Another aspect that could have attributed to this increase in students
performing below grade level is that these were the first two years of the new test. As a result, teachers
were not familiar with the test and could not prepare the students for the test as well. Teachers nor students
knew what to expect with the new test. Fourth grade students were also being tested on information they
used to be tested on in fifth grade. Additionally, the shifts in Common Core were still being introduced
during these testing years, so students were being introduced to a whole new way of learning during this
time. The shifts also expected more of them than has been expected of them in the past. Last, the level of
the students last year (2013-2014) was much lower than previous years. The fourth grade teachers at P.S.
37 found that these students required much more scaffolding during instruction. Further, the reading level
of this group of students was much lower than the reading level of the test.

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

Year

Level
Standards

2013

Percent
# of Students

Year

Level
Standards

2014

Percent
# of Students

1
Below
Standards

2
3
4
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards

40.2

42.5

13.8

3.4

35

37

12

1
Below
Standards

2
3
4
Meets Basic
Meets
Exceeds
Standards
Proficiency Proficiency
(Approaching) Standard
Standards

28.9

44.7

14.5

11.8

22

34

11

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 performing below grade level was 82.7%. In 2014, the
percentage of students performing below grade level was 73.6%. Thus, there was a significant
decrease in the percentage of students performing below grade level in math. The number of
students who scored a 1 had a significant decrease of 11.3% from 2013-2014. The percentage
of students who scored a 2 had a slight increase of 2.2% from 2013-2014. The percentage of
students who scored a 3 had a very slight increase of .7% from 2013-2014. The percentage of
students who scored a 4 increased by 8.4% between 2013 and 2014.
The reason for the decrease in the number of students who performed below grade level from
2013-2014 could be the introduction of the new math curriculum. P.S. 37 switched to Go Math
which seemed to have really benefited the students. The students respond well to the new
curriculum and this seems to have shown in their scores on the math portion of the test. The
school also adapted ST (Spatial Temporal) Math. It is a game-based software that aims to
boost math comprehension and proficiency through visual learning. The software is interactive
and helps to improve students conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills. Upon
adopting this program into the curriculum, fourth graders at P.S. 37 started using ST Math
twice a week. This could have made a large impact on the students performance.

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

Overview of School Performance in ELA

Results
Student Group

2012-2013

2013-2014

Total #
Tested

% Levels
1-2

% Levels
3-4

Total #
Tested

% Levels
1-2

% Levels
3-4

All Students

84

84.5

15.5

69

89.8

10.1

Students w/ Disabilities

20

100

18

100

Limited English Proficient

14

100

11

100

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 2012-2013, 79.7% of students without disabilities scored below grade level (1 or 2) compared to 100% of
students with disabilities who scored below grade level. In 2013-2014, the percentage of students without
disabilities who scored below grade level increased to 86.3%, while the percentage of students without
disabilities who scored below grade level stayed the same at 100%.
A potential reason for the disparity between the performance of the students with disabilities versus the students
without disabilities could pertain to the reading levels of the students with disabilities. Of the students with
disabilities at P.S. 37, many of them are reading at levels that are far below the reading level at which the test is
given. Thus, the students could be struggling to even read/understand the questions. Further, these students may
need a longer time to adjust to the new curriculum.

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 2012-2013, 80.6% of students who are not ELL scored below grade level (1 or 2) compared to 100% of ELL
students who scored below grade level. In 2013-2014, the percentage of students who are not ELL that scored
below grade level increased to 88.9%, while the percentage of ELL students who scored below grade level
stayed the same at 100%.
A potential reason for the disparity between the performance of non-ELL students versus ELL students could be
due to the fact that P.S. 37 is understaffed when it comes to ELL teachers. Thus, because the school does not
have enough teachers to teach these students, the ELL students are not getting everything they need to succeed.
Further, these students must balance learning English while also adjusting to the new curriculum and the new
test, thus the ELL students have more on their plates than do the students who are not ELL.

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

Overview of School Performance in Math

Results
Student Group

2012-2013

2013-2014

Total #
Tested

% Levels
1-2

% Levels
3-4

Total #
Tested

% Levels
1-2

% Levels
3-4

All Students

87

82.7

17.2

76

73.6

26.3

Students w/ Disabilities

20

100

18

94.4

5.6

Limited English Proficient

17

100

18

88.9

11.1

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 2012-2013, the percentage of students without disabilities who scored below grade level was 77.6%,
compared with 100% of students with disabilities who scored below grade level. In 2013-2014, the number of
students without disabilities who scored below average decreased to 67.3%, while the number of students with
disabilities who performed below average decreased to 94.4%.
One reason for the disparity between the students with disabilities versus the students without disabilities could
be due to the new curriculum. The students with disabilities may take a longer time to adjust to the new
curriculum. Further, the reading levels of the students with disabilities are much lower, so if there are word
problems and questions that required reading on the test, the scores may not be completely accurate/reflective of
the math skills of the students with disabilities. At the same time, however, this new curriculum could also have
attributed to the decrease in the number of students with disabilities who performed below 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 indicate. Compare the last 2 years to see if there is
improvement:
In 2012-2013, the percentage of non-ELL students who scored below grade level was 77.6%, compared to 100%
of the ELL students who scored below grade level. In 2013-2014, the percentage of non-ELL students who
scored below grade level decreased to 72.2%, while the percentage of ELL students who performed below grade
level decreased to 88.9%.
The performance between ELL students/non-ELL students shows less of a disparity in math than it did in ELA.
Part of the reasoning for this could be that math is universal, so there is less of a barrier for the ELL students to
overcome. Further, all students were introduced to the new math curriculum, Go Math and ST Math. Thus, this
seems to have helped all students to increase their scores. The reasoning for the disparity between ELL vs. nonELL students performances could be due to the lack of ELL teachers at P.S. 37.

Find the information on the School Report Card

www.nysed.gov
Demographics
Year

Eligible for
Free Lunch

Reduced
Price Lunch

Student
Stability

Limited
English
Proficient

2011

78%
#469

3%
#20

12%
#74

2012

78%
#486

4%
#22

13%
#78

Notes

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

Percentage wise, there were no major changes between 2011 and 2012 in reference to
students who are eligible for free lunch, who receive reduced price lunch, and are limited
English proficient.

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

21%
#124

76%
#458

1.0%
#5

2%
#13

2012

0%
#1

23%
#140

74%
#462

1%
#6

2%
#13

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

There were no major changes in the racial/ethnic origin of the students who attended P.S.
37 between 2011 and 2012.

Attendance & Suspensions

Year
2011-2012

Attendance %
91%

Suspensions
4%

Notes

#23

10

2012-13

91%

4%

#26

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

There are no changes in the attendance/suspension rates at P.S. 37 between 2011 and 2012.

11

12